Starcraft Sweden Political Tournament

pirate (noun)- a person who attacks and robs ships at sea
pirate (verb)- rob or plunder a ship
privateer (noun)- an armed ship owned and officered by private individuals holding a government commission and authorized for use in war, especially in the capture of enemy merchant shipping

Pirate and privateer are two completely different things. Privateer means private organization sponsored by the government to wage war, not government sponsored piracy. And privateers are not necessarily mercenaries. Mercenary means you don't give a fuck what side you are, just the paycheck. I can't speak for all countries but the most well known (possibly largest?) American privateering company, Blackwater, works only for the US government.

The difference between "pirate" and "priveteer" from a dictionary point of view does not cover the economic neccessity of "piracy" from the perspective of a priveteer during times of peace, however short they are. Piracy in the strict meaning of the word was very uncommon and usually fades in with priveteering.

Next to that, the concept of "private organization" did not excist in the 17th and 18th century, as the distinction between private and public was extremely vague. Any given "pirate" would always have ties (economical, social, etc.) to a certain "government". This is mainly due to the fact the concept of a "professional soldier" did not fully emerge until the Napoleontic wars, forcing "governments" to use mercenaries, priveteers etc.

Additionally, a priveteer and/or pirate is not necessarily "sponsored" by a government if the letter of marque is the only tie.

I claimed that private mercenaries in Iraq and Afganistan are somewhat comparable to priveteers, as they both perform acts of war on the authorization of a "government". Furthermore, and this might come as a shock to Americans, those private mercenaries do not neccessarily care about the outcome of those wars/conflicts, as their incentives are not fully aligned with those of the US government. The entire US weapon/military industry benefits with an ongoing war/conflict, where the US government does not (military-industrial-complex).

The difference between "pirate" and "priveteer" from a dictionary point of view does not cover the economic neccessity of "piracy" from the perspective of a priveteer during times of peace, however short they are. Piracy in the strict meaning of the word was very uncommon and usually fades in with priveteering.

Next to that, the concept of "private organization" did not excist in the 17th and 18th century, as the distinction between private and public was extremely vague. Any given "pirate" would always have ties (economical, social, etc.) to a certain "government". This is mainly due to the fact the concept of a "professional soldier" did not fully emerge until the Napoleontic wars, forcing "governments" to use mercenaries, priveteers etc.

Additionally, a priveteer and/or pirate is not necessarily "sponsored" by a government if the letter of marque is the only tie.

Just because some privateers 300-400 years ago were "pirates" does not mean the base words have any connotation. Two completely different things that happen to be spelled similarly.

I claimed that private mercenaries in Iraq and Afganistan are somewhat comparable to priveteers, as they both perform acts of war on the authorization of a "government". Furthermore, and this might come as a shock to Americans, those private mercenaries do not neccessarily care about the outcome of those wars/conflicts, as their incentives are not fully aligned with those of the US government. The entire US weapon/military industry benefits with an ongoing war/conflict, where the US government does not (military-industrial-complex).

Like I said I can't speak for every country involved but the US does not have any "mercenaries" in Iraq or Afghanistan. Most if not all of the US contractors have already done their time in the US military, so yes most of them do care. And this may come as a shock to Europeans, but the concept of (and term) a military industrial complex originated in the states and is part of the public high school history curriculum, so there is no doubt a higher awareness of the MIC in the US than anywhere else.

It’s quite curious how this thread shifted from discussing Swedish politicians’ populist tricks with gamers to the classificatory debate about including video gaming in Art. But well this is the scrapyard; let’s talk to our hearts content.

I’m going to weigh in on the Art debate. All previous posts agree on Art being a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities. Yet I see that none of you have mentioned or identify what makes the essence of Art, previous post get close to it but miss stating it.

Well,it's to mark one’s passage on Earth, regardless of there being an audience, a spectator. That’s why architecture, paintings (on any support), sculpture, literature or even the work of artisans are the highest Art.

It’s not purely about emotion, it’s not about feeling, it is a statement. Those works of Art, once crafted have an existence of their own; they are present in this word either to be admired or reviled, rarely leaving individuals indifferent and can stand the test of time like no other, they will outlive us. I'm not denying that there is good art & bad art, which is mainly a matter of taste, preference and seing if the artist is truly gifted.

For instance Nowadays people tend to consider many forms of new media as Art, well it's mostly BAD Art and what it truly is is entertainment.

90% of films are bad Art, even if cinema is dubbed the seventh art, it’s pretty rare to see a film really worthy of being assimilated to Art, same goes for commercial music. This has to do with entertainment being a commercial & financial industry, contrary to Art.

Most of Hollywood movies are meant to be emotional and entertaining, just because you cried as a kid when Mufasa died or had a great experience with any Hollywood summer blockbuster does not make it Art if there's no outstanding/properly serious message/statement, same goes for most commercial music, you can like a song, really enjoy, it can make you happy or sad, but Miley Cyrus wrecking ball is not Art.

But I assure you that the latest single from any current superstar won’t be hummed nor singed in 1000 years. Melodies are Art, such as familiar rhythm or musical theme, as they can be deeply intertwined within a culture in the course of several centuries, making said melody a tradition that defines local folklore. It’s the case of national anthems and so on.

Moreover, when it comes to new media, films and videogames need to be played, if no one is there to turn on the projector/radio/console/pc, nothing happens, there is no message, no beauty, no statement, no feeling, no life.

That is why it’s most time it's not real Art and we have to cherry pick the worthy pieces of music/films in order to categorize them as Art. The highest Art has to exist by itself, assert its presence after it is created by human activities.

Now, talking specifically about video gaming. It really is not Art, not even BAD Art and most big shots in the gaming industry, be it developers or the press agree on it.

Video games face several issues that need to be addressed in order to be Art.

1. Nothing happens without the player’s input. Therefore there is no story, no message, no visual beauty without the player. If I load up a game and sit there waiting in the main menu, I’m not experiencing anything. If I decide to start Bioshock and then decide to halt my progress and stay there on the ocean by the plane wreck instead of reaching the lighthouse and then the bathysphere, nothing happens, the story, thus the message and work of Ken Levine & Irrational games dev staff will not be experienced. Contrary to a painting or monument, that cannot be unseen it, it’s there, it exist, I saw it and won’t forget it. Or a piece of music, I cannot force myself not to hear it, if it’s being played in the background, I have to flee the place, and once heard I cannot un-hear it. You see they have a life of their own, that’s why it’s art, it’s not the case of gaming which is inherently tied to the player’s goodwill.


2. Video Games are a jack of all trades and thus suffer an Identity crisis. Painting is the illustration of one thoughts or state of mind, that’s it. Games are everything and thus nothing. They can be sports, such as MOBAs, RTS, turn based strategy games, racing games, sport games etc… They can be didactic tools such as simulators. They can be interactive movies such a Heavy Rain. They can be a wonderful storytelling medium, it’s the case of the Bioshock franchise, Last of Us and most RPGs. Sports however elegant their rules are is not Art, it’s a competition; software is not Art, it’s an instrument.

3. Art is more concerned with the expression of ideas...Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. Sure one can play an immersive game such as Dear Esther or Gone Home without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.


4. The irony is the videogames are the product of an artistic process (The sketches and all stuff in the art books, the score, the writing process of the story, lore & plot), but the final product is meant to be a service or activity mainly focusing on fun and replayability (thus repetition); And not as a medium to deliver a serious message that exist regardless of player input. Finally said service (The videogame) is meant to make increasing amounts of money for an industry, the one’s really calling the shots are the publishers and Suits, not the devs who work hard, loving their work and artistic process just to see it gutted by the douchebags at marketing that want to make it mainstream and entertaining. Regardless of them having artistic talents, people “work” on videogames for remuneration. Also in order to make a video game, you need a Studio with Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management, I rest my case. A true Artist produces what he wants, not what an overseer/boss tells him to do, and does so regardless of people liking it or not, it’s not work, it’s not about remuneration. He makes his living from “mécènes” (patrons of the arts) that do not interfere in his artistic process and buy it because they liked it in the first place. Van Gogh died in misery never having sold a single painting to anyone but his brother. Videogames are all about sales & profit even if the guys whom work on it won’t make that much money, the publishers do. Also there is no such thing as a unique game, because there are several copies of the videogame, it’s an industrial product/service.

5. Most video games are not even a finalized product anymore, it used to be, but now it’s a service. We as gamers can distort, even contradict the devs intended message or gameplay. Relic never intended that every 2v2 match had to display an Elefant vs ISU-152 duel, well too bad, we as gamers abuse that strat, screw you Relic and your balance. Then they patch it, and we break it again and so on. Once a work of Art is finished and signed it cannot be altered, the Mona Lisa smiles, you can’t repaint the original piece and make it grinch, if you do so it’s not a piece of Art anymore, because a piece of Art is definitive, Da Vinci wanted it that way it stays that way until it is destroyed.

So I personally can't see how video games can be Art, it’s quite delusional to consider them as such. However some noteworthy games are making progress in the right direction, instead of emulating different forms of Art, (Such as video games trying too hard to be movies, or games trying too hard to be sports), games like the Half-life series have it right by trying to be more original and acknowledging the medium’s idiosyncrasies as strength!

There’s not a single cut scene in HL1 & HL2 and you are always in control of your Avatar, (Gordon freeman) never speaks because it’s meant to be you, the devs can’t put words in your mouth nor will force you to choose from an list of predefined Q&A. Actually it makes you more akin to a silent spectator when it comes to the story, your actions and choices have no consequence in Half life, regardless of you killing anyone or everyone will not change the story only the perspective from which you witness it, therefore the devs (artists) message is unhampered. If it keeps going in that original direction we might end up someday with certain video games recognized as Art, but note that that makes “video games” more akin to an immersive and interactive experience than a game.

Ultimately it seems unlikely as the new trend for most games is to go open world, propose 8 different endings and players want to see their actions shape the game’s world to make their playthroughs unique, so there’s no message from an artist, only what we players want in our sandbox.

I don’t see why many gamers want recognition of a game as Art, that’s mistaken. Why just not play and enjoy ourselves! Bobby Fischer, Maradona or Michael Jordan never said they thought their games were an art form. Neither should we.

Cheers.

Just because some privateers 300-400 years ago were "pirates" does not mean the base words have any connotation. Two completely different things that happen to be spelled similarly.


Like I said I can't speak for every country involved but the US does not have any "mercenaries" in Iraq or Afghanistan. Most if not all of the US contractors have already done their time in the US military, so yes most of them do care. And this may come as a shock to Europeans, but the concept of (and term) a military industrial complex originated in the states and is part of the public high school history curriculum, so there is no doubt a higher awareness of the MIC in the US than anywhere else.

The private contractors constitute of roughly 75% of military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of these contractors are probably ex US military indeed, however, their main objective is a financial one differing from that of the US government, making them mercenaries. The US government being their main employer does not change this. The continuity of these mercenaries and the US weapon industry relies on ongoing wars/conflicts, which does not benefit the US as a whole.

The United States is effectively the only country with a military-industrial-complex, given the size and thereby influence of the weapons industry together with the way the US political system allows this. I am surprised that despite your "higher awareness" you would still consider the incentives of these private contractors to be aligned with the incentives of the US government and/or your own.

The private contractors constitute of roughly 75% of military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of these contractors are probably ex US military indeed, however, their main objective is a financial one differing from that of the US government, making them mercenaries. The US government being their main employer does not change this. The continuity of these mercenaries and the US weapon industry relies on ongoing wars/conflicts, which does not benefit the US as a whole.

But only ~20% of those contractors are private security, meaning the majority of them are hardly "military" personnel. Mercenary means you are for hire by anyone. You're just going in circles calling them mercenaries, because even if they are only motivated by the money, by that broad interpretation anyone who joins the US military for the benefits (G.I. bill for example) would be also be a mercenary, which is clearly not the case.

The United States is effectively the only country with a military-industrial-complex, given the size and thereby influence of the weapons industry together with the way the US political system allows this. I am surprised that despite your "higher awareness" you would still consider the incentives of these private contractors to be aligned with the incentives of the US government and/or your own.

PMCs are a part of the military-industrial-complex, but Eisenhower was mainly referring to arms manufacturers and not private security. Also just because I know what the MIC is doesn't necessarily mean I think every modern conflict is a cash grab.

@Frencho: Your definition of art is extremely narrow, but why .....?

art is a statement.

Why does art have to present a statement?

nothing happens, the story, thus the message and work of Ken Levine & Irrational games dev staff will not be experienced.

Why would art need to have a predetermined message which can only be experienced in a predetermined way?

Games are everything and thus nothing.

Why does art need to be labelled in a set category?

Art is more concerned with the expression of ideas

Why does art have to express an idea?

A true Artist produces what he wants, not what an overseer/boss tells him to do, and does so regardless of people liking it or not, it’s not work, it’s not about remuneration.

Why would art made by order of a client not be labelled "true art"?

Most video games are not even a finalized product anymore

Why can unfinalized objects not be considered as art?

We as gamers can distort, even contradict the devs intended message or gameplay.

Why would a distorted and/or contradicted receival of the intended message revoke the claim of art?

Once a work of Art is finished and signed it cannot be altered

Why would an altered work of art no longer be defined as art?

a piece of Art is definitive

Why can an indefinite object or person not be considered art?



None of these questions can be answered as for every question a globally recognized piece of art excist, which does not abide by your rules of art. Therefore, your definition is too narrow, thereby not allowing video games to be art.

But only ~20% of those contractors are private security, meaning the majority of them are hardly "military" personnel. Mercenary means you are for hire by anyone. You're just going in circles calling them mercenaries, because even if they are only motivated by the money, by that broad interpretation anyone who joins the US military for the benefits (G.I. bill for example) would be also be a mercenary, which is clearly not the case.


PMCs are a part of the military-industrial-complex, but Eisenhower was mainly referring to arms manufacturers and not private security. Also just because I know what the MIC is doesn't necessarily mean I think every modern conflict is a cash grab.

Everybody in the US military swears an oath to the United States, thereby making their incentive not just financial. Private contractors are not bound by an oath to a specific country, making them mercenaries.

An oath is not a litmus test for mercenary status, sorry.

PS: Mercenary- a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army : a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him

I cannot help you if you continue to argue that private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be considered mercenaries despite the simmilarities presented to you. I am assuming it has to do with your combined "patriotism" and misconnotation of the meaning of the word mercenary.

P.S. those private contractors are not contractually bound to solely work for the US government. There is just not any other western government fighting wars to that extent ....

@The Riddler.

Not going to deny that I have my own preferences on what is Art, mainly sticking with high Art, the one that has been here for tens of thousands of years such as the Lascaux cave paintings. However I don't see how you can consider an object without intellectual, spiritual or philosophical meaning a work of Art, all Art has meaning thus a message that touches us, the spectator, regardless of that message/meaning being dull or brilliant there must be one.

But what you're doing is just nitpicking definitions on Art.

There is not a definitive one Plato, via Aristotle, believed art should be defined as the imitation of nature. Seneca and Cicero essentially agreed.

Many others disagreed.

But we could play all day with definitions, and find exceptions to every one.

Still my main argument stands strong. Video Games are not Art, as long as there is the word GAME in it. And also as long as it is an industrial process and the the goal of the gaming industry is sales & profit.

The medium we utilize for gaming (Computer generated interactive experiences), can be Art if it removes all the game elements such as competition, rules, goals, conditions, winning or losing etc.

The indie title Dear Esther, in which you just wander aimlessly in a virtual world, is not a videogame, you're not really playing as there is no goal, it's an interactive experience. That could arguably be considered Art by some, the jury is still out. Same goes for Home Alone. Furthermore, the fact that they are being developed by an independent small team, these experiences stick to the author's vision and are less distorted by publishers and all that industrial/financial aspect of the gaming industry. Something else noteworthy is the fact that videogame reviews SCORE and RATE video games, thus acting as a buyers guide for gamers (Enhancing the commercial and industry aspect). Unlike real Art critics who just say I liked it or I didn't and heres why, but never put a rating. The moment you put a score on a game review you make it a product, not a work of Art.

No one in or out of the Art field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists, composers, sculptors, painters and architects.

This is just a mistaken as calling e-sport gamers, Athletes (a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise). They are tremendously skilled, but that does not make them athletes.

Just to be clear, I don't have issues with the medium video games use, just the game element, that medium can be used of Art. it's not that my definitions are not allowing video games to be art, they just can't. Sports are not Art, games are not Art.

Cheers.

Edit: In retrospect, some nitpicks you did are valid. Many result from me not expressing myself correctly in order to be fully understood. What I mean that if you alter a finished work of Art and you are not the author, it's vandalism, thus that piece of work stops being Art as it is no longer the work of the original Artist. Seeing it changes the meaning of that piece, destroying it. It's similar to considering a copy of the Original work of Art, as Art. Even if said copy is perfect the motivation for doing it is not genuine, there is no genius behind it. However if you copy a piece of art while making your own original changes to it in order to contradict or honour the original one; it's Art because it's a whole new original work of art inspired by another one, they are similar in aesthetics yet distinct in meaning/message. The example in gaming would be what a MOD is to a Released video Game.

But I have to agree on you with the finalized claim. One can consider it Art even if it the work of Art is still in progress. I just got tunneled vision with the fact many Artists dislike having unfinished work being leaked, published as they don't deem it ready nor worthy, yet.

It’s quite curious how this thread shifted from discussing Swedish politicians’ populist tricks with gamers to the classificatory debate about including video gaming in Art. But well this is the scrapyard; let’s talk to our hearts content.

I’m going to weigh in on the Art debate. All previous posts agree on Art being a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities. Yet I see that none of you have mentioned or identify what makes the essence of Art, previous post get close to it but miss stating it.

Well,it's to mark one’s passage on Earth, regardless of there being an audience, a spectator. That’s why architecture, paintings (on any support), sculpture, literature or even the work of artisans are the highest Art.

It’s not purely about emotion, it’s not about feeling, it is a statement. Those works of Art, once crafted have an existence of their own; they are present in this word either to be admired or reviled, rarely leaving individuals indifferent and can stand the test of time like no other, they will outlive us. I'm not denying that there is good art & bad art, which is mainly a matter of taste, preference and seing if the artist is truly gifted.

For instance Nowadays people tend to consider many forms of new media as Art, well it's mostly BAD Art and what it truly is is entertainment.

90% of films are bad Art, even if cinema is dubbed the seventh art, it’s pretty rare to see a film really worthy of being assimilated to Art, same goes for commercial music. This has to do with entertainment being a commercial & financial industry, contrary to Art.

Most of Hollywood movies are meant to be emotional and entertaining, just because you cried as a kid when Mufasa died or had a great experience with any Hollywood summer blockbuster does not make it Art if there's no outstanding/properly serious message/statement, same goes for most commercial music, you can like a song, really enjoy, it can make you happy or sad, but Miley Cyrus wrecking ball is not Art.

But I assure you that the latest single from any current superstar won’t be hummed nor singed in 1000 years. Melodies are Art, such as familiar rhythm or musical theme, as they can be deeply intertwined within a culture in the course of several centuries, making said melody a tradition that defines local folklore. It’s the case of national anthems and so on.

Moreover, when it comes to new media, films and videogames need to be played, if no one is there to turn on the projector/radio/console/pc, nothing happens, there is no message, no beauty, no statement, no feeling, no life.

That is why it’s most time it's not real Art and we have to cherry pick the worthy pieces of music/films in order to categorize them as Art. The highest Art has to exist by itself, assert its presence after it is created by human activities.

Now, talking specifically about video gaming. It really is not Art, not even BAD Art and most big shots in the gaming industry, be it developers or the press agree on it.

Video games face several issues that need to be addressed in order to be Art.

1. Nothing happens without the player’s input. Therefore there is no story, no message, no visual beauty without the player. If I load up a game and sit there waiting in the main menu, I’m not experiencing anything. If I decide to start Bioshock and then decide to halt my progress and stay there on the ocean by the plane wreck instead of reaching the lighthouse and then the bathysphere, nothing happens, the story, thus the message and work of Ken Levine & Irrational games dev staff will not be experienced. Contrary to a painting or monument, that cannot be unseen it, it’s there, it exist, I saw it and won’t forget it. Or a piece of music, I cannot force myself not to hear it, if it’s being played in the background, I have to flee the place, and once heard I cannot un-hear it. You see they have a life of their own, that’s why it’s art, it’s not the case of gaming which is inherently tied to the player’s goodwill.


2. Video Games are a jack of all trades and thus suffer an Identity crisis. Painting is the illustration of one thoughts or state of mind, that’s it. Games are everything and thus nothing. They can be sports, such as MOBAs, RTS, turn based strategy games, racing games, sport games etc… They can be didactic tools such as simulators. They can be interactive movies such a Heavy Rain. They can be a wonderful storytelling medium, it’s the case of the Bioshock franchise, Last of Us and most RPGs. Sports however elegant their rules are is not Art, it’s a competition; software is not Art, it’s an instrument.

3. Art is more concerned with the expression of ideas...Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. Sure one can play an immersive game such as Dear Esther or Gone Home without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.


4. The irony is the videogames are the product of an artistic process (The sketches and all stuff in the art books, the score, the writing process of the story, lore & plot), but the final product is meant to be a service or activity mainly focusing on fun and replayability (thus repetition); And not as a medium to deliver a serious message that exist regardless of player input. Finally said service (The videogame) is meant to make increasing amounts of money for an industry, the one’s really calling the shots are the publishers and Suits, not the devs who work hard, loving their work and artistic process just to see it gutted by the douchebags at marketing that want to make it mainstream and entertaining. Regardless of them having artistic talents, people “work” on videogames for remuneration. Also in order to make a video game, you need a Studio with Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management, I rest my case. A true Artist produces what he wants, not what an overseer/boss tells him to do, and does so regardless of people liking it or not, it’s not work, it’s not about remuneration. He makes his living from “mécènes” (patrons of the arts) that do not interfere in his artistic process and buy it because they liked it in the first place. Van Gogh died in misery never having sold a single painting to anyone but his brother. Videogames are all about sales & profit even if the guys whom work on it won’t make that much money, the publishers do. Also there is no such thing as a unique game, because there are several copies of the videogame, it’s an industrial product/service.

5. Most video games are not even a finalized product anymore, it used to be, but now it’s a service. We as gamers can distort, even contradict the devs intended message or gameplay. Relic never intended that every 2v2 match had to display an Elefant vs ISU-152 duel, well too bad, we as gamers abuse that strat, screw you Relic and your balance. Then they patch it, and we break it again and so on. Once a work of Art is finished and signed it cannot be altered, the Mona Lisa smiles, you can’t repaint the original piece and make it grinch, if you do so it’s not a piece of Art anymore, because a piece of Art is definitive, Da Vinci wanted it that way it stays that way until it is destroyed.

So I personally can't see how video games can be Art, it’s quite delusional to consider them as such. However some noteworthy games are making progress in the right direction, instead of emulating different forms of Art, (Such as video games trying too hard to be movies, or games trying too hard to be sports), games like the Half-life series have it right by trying to be more original and acknowledging the medium’s idiosyncrasies as strength!

There’s not a single cut scene in HL1 & HL2 and you are always in control of your Avatar, (Gordon freeman) never speaks because it’s meant to be you, the devs can’t put words in your mouth nor will force you to choose from an list of predefined Q&A. Actually it makes you more akin to a silent spectator when it comes to the story, your actions and choices have no consequence in Half life, regardless of you killing anyone or everyone will not change the story only the perspective from which you witness it, therefore the devs (artists) message is unhampered. If it keeps going in that original direction we might end up someday with certain video games recognized as Art, but note that that makes “video games” more akin to an immersive and interactive experience than a game.

Ultimately it seems unlikely as the new trend for most games is to go open world, propose 8 different endings and players want to see their actions shape the game’s world to make their playthroughs unique, so there’s no message from an artist, only what we players want in our sandbox.

I don’t see why many gamers want recognition of a game as Art, that’s mistaken. Why just not play and enjoy ourselves! Bobby Fischer, Maradona or Michael Jordan never said they thought their games were an art form. Neither should we.

Cheers.

Total nonsense, I have never read such considering bullshit towards the artist in my industry.

@Wuff. Did not mean to offend anyone. Seeing you work on the gaming industry you could take this more personally than others.

Still, you guys seem to disagree with Superkeitel, Basilone and Me (We all agreed that the medium and process of making video games is artistic yet playing them is not), but don't care to back up that argument.

So why are the finished video games we play, Art?

@Wuff. Did not mean to offend anyone. Seeing you work on the gaming industry you could take this more personally than others.

Still, you guys seem to disagree with Superkeitel, Basilone and Me (We all agreed that the medium and process of making video games is artistic yet playing them is not), but don't care to back up that argument.

So why are the finished video games we play, Art?

Playing isn't, but what they witness or experience is.

Still my main argument stands strong. Video Games are not Art, as long as there is the word GAME in it. And also as long as it is an industrial process and the the goal of the gaming industry is sales & profit.

The size of the art industry is equal to, if not bigger, than the gaming industry (ignoring any possible bubbles). Art can become an investment, but an investment can also turn into art.

There are many portraits made by order of legislators, soldiers, kings, merchants etc. by famous 17th-19th century painters that are exhibited in art galleries all over the world.

A sport or a game itself might not be labelled as art, but many parts of a sport or a game are experienced as if it was art. For example: an incredible dribble by Messi answers to your defenition of art, as there is a story, a message, visual beauty, a set category, an idea, it cannot be copied, it cannot be altered etc.

Would the fact that the objective is to win/score overrule all this in order to not define it as art, even though the end score of that particular game will not be remembered, but that incredible dribble will? If Maradonna's dribble against England will still be remembered a thousand years from now, would it turn into art then?

Poetry, films, novels, music, sculptures, paintings and buildings mostly emerged out of necessity, without the desire for art. Even an old sport such as boxing is defined as "the noble art of self-defence" today.

(Playing) video games might not be considered as art now, but as time goes by, anything will become art.

Therefore: art does no abide by rules, but by time.

Playing isn't, but what they witness or experience is.

Fair enough. So after all it seems we all kinda agree on that.

Actually it goes back to my second point on my first post about videogames' identity crisis.

Video games are still figuring themselves out. The medium is artistic, no one ever denied that, its just not being properly executed. But how many of us get video games just to watch & experience them instead of playing them? In that sense aren't streamers or youtubers the artist and their playthroughs the work of Art because we watch their channels, their experience and story and how in return it affects us?

Also not all genres of video games might be fully considered Art, there will be a distinction in the future btw story driven experiences and E-sports/Simulators, even if they share the same medium. Plus at the moment there's the issue that videogames are ineligible to be considered fine art due to their commercial appeal and structure. Whether you like it not not you have to acknowledge that Art is also an Institution, and a slowly evolving one.

France legally considers video games as a form of artistic expression, but I think it's the only country that does so ( I wonder to what point it's not a decision based on french economic interest for the government to give subsidies to developers, the French Gaming industry is arguably one of the biggest in the World with Ubisoft and Activision/Blizzard, owned by Vivendi a french media giant...)

Ultimately my long post was not nonsense then =P, we just don't agree on everything, as is expected.

This debate is always very controversial. I've been a gamer all my life but I still can't outright call a single video game Art, although Dear Esther, Dark Souls, Shadow of the Colossus make me reflect on my standing on this a lot (Again story driven interactive experiences where the goal is not to win). But I still don't buy that e-sports or competitive games will be Art, not now, tomorrow or in 2 centuries (Video game animations are not unique unlike maradona's dribble, however a microed play can be unique hmm..?).

Some links on where stand some the most critically acclaimed designers in the gaming industry in the debate of video games as Art. Like me, they still think it's not Art, not yet at least.

Kevin Levine

Hideo kojima

David Cage

Tales of Tales Indie Studio

Bryan Moriarty

Still there are just as many video game creators (Molyneux, Todd Howard) that advocate that games already are Art.

Cheers.

I cannot help you if you continue to argue that private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be considered mercenaries despite the simmilarities presented to you. I am assuming it has to do with your combined "patriotism" and misconnotation of the meaning of the word mercenary.

P.S. those private contractors are not contractually bound to solely work for the US government. There is just not any other western government fighting wars to that extent ....

There is no misconnotation on my end, I can't help it that definitionof mercenary and your perception of one are two different things. Blackwater might not be bound to only do the USAs bidding, but they still don't represent anyone else so they are not mercs. Even if they were hired by an ally government like UK or Israel they still wouldn't be mercenaries since they are still fighting for the same side.

There is no misconnotation on my end, I can't help it that definitionof mercenary and your perception of one are two different things. Blackwater might not be bound to only do the USAs bidding, but they still don't represent anyone else so they are not mercs. Even if they were hired by an ally government like UK or Israel they still wouldn't be mercenaries since they are still fighting for the same side.

That would still mean they are mercenaries, they are fighting for money, i mean you could say they are part mercs because they won't go fight for some random non nato country, but will fight for any nato country.

Still going in circles, you can join the military for the money. Even if you take your oath very seriously and are loyal to your country, not very many people would have taken the contract if it was a non paying job. If this entire time you have been defining a mercenary as "A person primarily concerned with material reward at the expense of ethics" which is the very vague usage of the word and can be applied to someone of any profession, then technically you could be right, if you honestly believe no security contractors have any ethics. But according to usage which refers specifically to hired guns, you're wrong.

Still going in circles, you can join the military for the money. Even if you take your oath very seriously and are loyal to your country, not very many people would have taken the contract if it was a non paying job. If this entire time you have been defining a mercenary as "A person primarily concerned with material reward at the expense of ethics" which is the very vague usage of the word and can be applied to someone of any profession, then technically you could be right, if you honestly believe no security contractors have any ethics. But according to usage which refers specifically to hired guns, you're wrong.

I think you may be wandering into murky waters.....

A mercenary is a hired gun who fights for money as his reward,irrespective of the cause. On that, I hope we can agree?

So,were the Mexicans mercenaries, who fought for the US in Fallujah, in the hopes of surviving and obtaining US citizenship and/or a sponsored college education?

Is the French Foreign Legion a band of mercenaries?

Are Commonwealth troops mercenaries, who are attached to UK regiments?

Were UK SAS troopers mercenaries, who were attached to the Australian SAS in order to to fight in Vietnam, when the British Army did not deploy there?

Are private contractors from USA or UK mercenaries, if they leave the army and then go back to fight alongside their former comrades?

I would say they were all mercenaries, but it is not clear cut

I think you may be wandering into murky waters.....

A mercenary is a hired gun who fights for money as his reward,irrespective of the cause. On that, I hope we can agree?

So,were the Mexicans mercenaries, who fought for the US in Fallujah, in the hopes of surviving and obtaining US citizenship and/or a sponsored college education?

Tough one. If they were looking to become citizens I would say no they are not, since they've shown some strong favortism for that country if their goal is to be a part of it.

Is the French Foreign Legion a band of mercenaries?

Not very familiar with the FFL so not going to comment on that one.

Are Commonwealth troops mercenaries, who are attached to UK regiments?

No

Were UK SAS troopers mercenaries, who were attached to the Australian SAS in order to to fight in Vietnam, when the British Army did not deploy there?

Allied countries, plus SAS is part of the military. So definitely a no.

Are private contractors from USA or UK mercenaries, if they leave the army and then go back to fight alongside their former comrades?

If they are fighting alongside former comrades then they are still working for their government, so no.

I would say they were all mercenaries, but it is not clear cut

And I don't think I said this earlier but the reasons for going private after being discharged doesn't need to be purely for more money. Even if it paid similar to being in the military, it would still be appealing to some people since it would allow them to continue doing what they know (and possibly enjoy doing) but with more personal freedoms since they aren't property of the state anymore.