Again, a movie is a representation of a particular artist's vision. There's no "okay, now you blow up the president." Or at least, there damn well shouldn't be.
Church legal threat over 'sick and sacrilegious' PlayStation game set in Manchester
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Again, a movie is a representation of a particular artist's vision. There's no "okay, now you blow up the president." Or at least, there damn well shouldn't be.
That's what I was thinking. I was pretty sure that was mostly all on the shoulders of Catholicism. But, again, I'm not up on Church of England's history.
I disagree, the code rendered in any game is as valid an art form as any computer generated image. Political statement, I'll leave that up to interpretation, but art is a very broad term more encompassing than exclusive.
Bad taste? Definitely. Illegal? I don't see it. If I am allowed to enter the church and photograph it and sell my photographs, then this should be allowed.
But again, REALLY bad taste.
But again, REALLY bad taste.
I see your point here,comics are now considered art,hell i think when abstract art first appeared it had the art world on it's heals.....
I think if it affects the human condition, it's art.
The code, the game, the end product, yes, you could say these are artwork. But, they are not being sold under the intent to, 'here, admire how well I did this'. They are being sold to be used. And in their use, they lose their status as artwork. Because the user is not making a statement. The user is repetetively blowing people up. Engaging in gunfights and bloodbaths. The creation of the game isn't what the church is concerned with... it's the USE of the game which raises alarm for them.
Well gee then it sounds like the people who buy them should be the ones arrested. If someone takes a carving I made and beats someone to death with it, am I liable?
But that is exactly the premise it is being sold under. Going back to the beginning, DOOM was exactly that. Repetitively blowing "creatures" up, engaging in gun fights and bloodbaths. With levels called "Knee Deep In The Dead" it's clear what the game was about and for. The addition of the "Death Match" pitting two or more players against each other, not creatures was of even greater appeal. The textures, the ambiance, the gore and the blood lust of killing before being ultimately killed yourself was exactly what the whole joy of the game was based upon.
Since then it's become much much more interactive, realistic, and fun than ever before. The "arena" is as much a part of the art as the landscape in LOTR was part of the movie. The significance of the arena varies from person to person but everyone who plays, likes a nice layout and atmosphere in which to do battle.
In the end, it's only a game and once something better comes along, it's left behind like a paper back novel. I still remember the days of logging on to a DOOM server for Network death match action fondly. But those days are gone and I've moved on to other things.
Why would anyone be arrested? The church is talking about tort law not criminal law.
Ok Ok....sued. Why would anyone be sued? And while we're at it lets say my carving was a war club. If someone bought it and used it to beat someone, would I be liable?
I don't blame this church for trying to draw a line in the sand. Real places, which could impact real people, shouldn't be used... plain and simple. It's been shown time and again that there are troubled youth out there. And while they are few and far between, their impact is highly felt when their deluded world crumbles and they take their rage out in a hail of gunfire. I know you say it's just a game. But it's not just a game for everyone unfortunately.
i couldnt read all the text but if it wasnt mentioned already "Gears of War" was banned from germany for being to violent.
It's sony forchrissakes they make movies every day. surely they know what they use in any medium is liable for copyright...hell they can't make a movie and not pay off rotton ronnies or get a line producer over to their head office for approval , if their camera pans past the place.
Methinks the viccer smells a chance for some dosh
Methinks the viccer smells a chance for some dosh
Well, you're still not talking about the same thing this article is talking about. The church isn't suing because they were shot.
Basically, if it becomes a law suit, it will be for using their images without permission, and in a manner that possibly endangers the building and the safety of those in it. It's not like they're the first to file such a law suit.
I can tell you that if your club was a targetted thing, say, "The Karrie beating Club", then I'd be well within my rights to sue you for selling it, as it bears the potential to plant a seed of a thought in some twisted mind, which cuold result in harm to me.
If it's a non-targetted thing as you first stated... simply a club... then it really bears no relevance to the conversation, since this case clearly involves a direct correlation between acts of violence and the building.
Blame it on the bosa nova. That angle will never wash and I've been on both sides of it in the past. Ban the colour blue because I say that what sets me off. Ban the figure of Christ on the cross because that's what someone says sets them off. Troubled people are troubled people and the rest of the world can't live on egg shells in fear of setting someone off. Someone who is going to pop is going to pop no matter what and the trigger will present it self to that person no matter what they are or aren't exposed to.
Real places are real replicated places in games, movies, song and constructed out of sand on the beach are not real. You can't ban the use of likeness without trade mark. And as far as I know, the Church sure ain't trade marked.
So while they can try any action the wish to in a court of law, which is their right in this land, they won't win because they are drawing a moral line in the sand.
But then again there is fair use and use of someone's likeness must create some sort of damages.
See what is happening here in your argument Karrie: you are defining art by how it is used. What of performance art? I can easily imagine a performance art piece in Hanna, Alberta using a field and a tractor.
Or an equally valid art piece using a firing squad and mannequins against the Wailing Wall.
Or what about food art?
Ice sculpture?
Or that it is designed to make money? What about all of the movies of Woody Allen? He said: "Of course it's a business; otherwise we'd be calling it show show." His stuff is most certainly art.
My degree isn't in fine art or art history, so I am a bit out of my water here, but I will say that this is art, by and consistent definition you can come up with.
Pangloss
There's lots of interactive art out there. Video games are but the latest form.
Pangloss