Gamer Revolution(CBC documentary,2007)

a) According to the film, what are some pros and cons of playing videogames for individuals and societies?

For individuals, it gives another platform for people to perform theirself. They can earn money and have great achievements by playing videogames as a career. Maybe those players can have more confidence by playing videogames as they can perform theirself through videogames and finish those missions that they can never do in the reality. I think this is fair to offer a chance for players to gain a sense of superiority that maybe effective to raise their confident in the real life. However, I said "it maybe". Those career players have to give up many other elements in their life to exchange their "achievements". And for individuals, it may leads players to addict in the games as they can only find those pleasure and sense of superiority in videogames. It may cause players try to avoid the reality that full of failure and dangerous.

For the societies, it shows videogames can bring training of soldier in the film. The army designed a game that related to the knowledge of military affairs.It can make people gain more information and understanding of military affairs.And it can encourage people to join the army.In the other side,videogame do bring negative influence to societies.For example,the addicted -teen- player who has been mentioned in the film,killed people with a gun in school. Videogames' themes always involved violent.It turns into an encouragement of violent as players have to win via using violent,like killing.

b) According the film, is there any evidence that digital games can encourage aggressive values and anti-social actions in the real world? Do you agree?
Yes, there are some evidence that digital games can encourage aggressive values and anti-social actions in the real world.
For example, there were some career-players introduced in the film. There work is playing computer game and their responsibilities are winning the games. This would make them isolated with the real world as their purpose of playing digital games is earning money and gaining achievements.Their life just have their jobs-playing games and barley nothing else.
Also, the film talks about some players killed people without reason. The only reason that can explain this is: games that they play express negative messages to them-people who kill other is hero and it is nothing to be violent.Therefore,some players murdered others to achieve success.
In the film, there was a game called "Postal" which experimented by laboratory.It showed that players who play it would have violent impulsion inside their brain. In this evidence, we can see that digital games contain elements which can bring aggressive message,feeling to players.

Certainly that I agree with this. People who are digital games players always addict to the games.They even don't have any feeling while they playing games.My brother is an great example! He just can't hear other's noise,even we just talk to him next after him. He just ignores any things that outside the game.Also,he tried to give up his study because of addiction of games.Therefore,I really agree about digital games encourage anti-social actions.

c) Should governments have the right to ban certain games? Why or why not?
Although I think some digital games bring negative affects, I think the government should not ban certain games.

It is because the people should have human right to play/develop the game, and I think the government have no permission to stop or avoid it. Also, it is so difficult to prove that playing video games is the main reason of causing violent crime (e.g. murdering), maybe it happens because of other reasons.

However, I think the government should set some limitations of playing certain games because it really affect the growth of children. For example, the government can set up the age limitation, to avoid the child play or be touch with those video games. To avoid the violate crime, the government also can have more promotion and education on public.

Is it reasonable to consider computer games as art?

1)How does Adams define art? Do you agree with his definition?

         According to the article, Adam defines art in different ways as follows:Firstly, he made classifications.---- Sort by it’s content: representational, expressional…--- Sort by art forms: paintings, sculptures… Literary art V.S. Fine art

He also believes that as a piece of art,it is important to deliver messages.I think Duchamp's fountain is a typical examples to this definition.

Furthermore, he makes an advanced definition on good art; he thinks that good art must last for eras, even though there are different perspectives to define art referring different periods.

It is crucial for a piece of good art (we usually call "masterpiece) passing through the challenges of times, or even spaces.

Overall, Adam has come across many ways of art-defending, those he covered is fairy agreed by the generals.

2. According to Adams, what is needed for videogames to be considered as art?

Adam thinks that to be an art, here are some features:

- Content to give people a new idea or messages

- Aesthetic qualities to give people sense of pleasure

- To make people feel things- to outweigh its consideration of utility and salability

- To do something that other art forms will do

- To have an artist who has received adequate public recognition

- to do something to persuade people to believe it is an art form Computer games is art as it creates new depiction of images, new meaning to us.

A work of art by Cory Arcangel

The original videogame: Super Mario


Features of the game:
-The clouds and the eyes-catching blue sky are came from the Mario Brothers
-Clouds slowly move from right to the left / left to right
-All the main characters in the Super Mario have been removed,
although they are the significant subject leading players to play the game
-The background music,which is supposed
to make player more filing into the game, is removed too
- The audience/players can only imagine they are playing the Super Mario videogame when looking at the slow motion of the clouds which illustrating you are moving in that digital world

Art or not?Why?
I think it can be called as an art.
Appearence:
There are some formal elements of being a art work. The forms, colors,composition is attractive, the image is still appealling after adjusted, like the nice contrast of the white and blue, although most of the character used to appear in the Super Mario is missing
Sustains:
It makes me think when I can JUST look at the moving clouds in such a slow motion. It is which could also allow me to have enough space and time to remind my memories and emotion when I am playing the Super Mario. This is the new idea and perspective for me to look at a videogame.

Cory Arcangel: Super-Mario Clouds, 2002
http://www.zunta.org/blog/archives/cloudsscroll.gif

Some other viewpoint on vediogames aesthetics or not :As Ernst Gom- rich asks in Art and Illusion:

'The rope hanging from the pulley- where does it lead?

How is the drawbridge tied up? What is the angle of the bannister near the lower edge?'

The artist used his illusionistic craft to create agnawing sense of uneasw in the viewer. In videogames so far, on the other hand, verything is fanastically, obsessively "ture" in three dimensions. There is no room for interesting fuzziness or spatial ambiguity.