This afternoon I had the pleasure of discovering the site Arthouse Games where Jason Rohrer takes on the challenge of exploring the more indie, artistic aspects of gaming. I like his approach .. it’s thoughtful, and his interviews usually hint at some amount of depth in the way he thinks about what artful games can mean. So, why did I bring that up?
He had a worthwhile interview with designer/coder Rod Humble who recently released The Marriage - an abstract art game based on a few simple relational principles. I haven’t had time to articulate a response to his game yet (which I found intriguing, if not overminimalistic), but I did come across something surprising in the interview. Other than mentioning his obvious interest in Wittgenstein and “language games”, he was asked to provide a quick definition of what “works of art” are to him (I also noticed that mentisworks liked the broad definition too):
JR: Can you give us a one-sentence definition of art? In other words, how do you differentiate works of entertainment from works of art?
RH: Entertainment is giving enjoyment to the maximum number of people you can. Art is that which can make at least one person a better human being. Long may they both prosper.
Now that is an interesting choice for a definition. It’s not often that you find game developers well-versed in modern philosophy. At the very least, Rod Humble seems to think like a philsopher. Let’s break open his definition a bit, since he didn’t get the chance to in the interview…
There is a long tradition in philosophical thought can be historically traced through what Charles Taylor calls the “expressive-constitutive” tradition (through other philosophers like Herder, Heidegger, etc). I won’t go into Taylor’s philosophy much here, but suffice to say that the ways we use language (”expression”) somehow partially “constitutes” our being - the people we are. So, to put it glibly: we are what we do. But what does that have to do with art?
From part of the same tradition, ideas have been drawn out from philosophers such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty that “art” is somehow made of the same stuff. Somehow, art has a way of making us see the world in a different way. He argues in an essay called Cezanne’s Doubt that artists often perceive the world truly differently than others - and their artistic expressions (such as paintings, or I would argue some games) can allow other people to re-perceive their worlds in a different way. For this tradition, expressive art is ontic … it doesn’t just give us new ‘facts’ about the world, it changes us in what we are sensitive to - and who we are. This is where Rod Humble’s articulation of what ‘art’ is about is so crucial: he’s got a constructive sense of it. He sees art as not just changing the world in a very vague sense (ie. creating new genres, new art movements), but he sees art as acting in a far deeper and specific way… it changes us in our being.
Now, is there anything curious about Rod’s definition? Well, for one thing - he doesn’t want art to simply change us … he wants it to change us for the better. Art should, through its magic, give us the tools to become better human beings. This is something shared by the contemporary philosopher of psychology John Shotter as well as Charles Taylor - they both envision that “expression” (think ‘artistic expression’) gives us new tools for thinking about the world differently. And by virtue of having new tools - new ways of apprehending reality - we can make new choices about how we want to live and who we want to be. So in that way, what makes us “better people” isn’t that art makes us happier or more enjoyable people, it’s that art can give us the tools to re-imagine ourselves that weren’t possible previously. Artful games are generative. There’s a lot more to be said on this topic of course - and I certainly won’t attempt to summarize a millenium worth of thought on ‘art’ in one shot, but Rod’s answer really struck a key with me.
If this articulation of Rod’s idea resonates at all with you, I think this is a good place to start when it comes to writing about games and art. One of the unfortunate problems in game criticism and journalism is that we are far too caught up with if a game is “fun” or “enjoyable” - or whether we liked or disliked some of the game mechanics. This is not a deep interpretation of what is involved in a game - it is simply a reaction to it. What is necessary to really ‘pull out’ the more aesthetic and artistic values in certain games is a far deeper interpretation that might include the “generative” aspects of games - how they may have given us new psychological tools for re-imagining our realities. That’s just one aspect, but it’s an important one as Rod Humble pointed out.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://www.artfulgamer.com/2007/06/08/what-is-artful/trackback/
July 14, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Michal
Ah, at last I have the time (and motivation) to comment on this post. My apologies for taking as long a time to comment on this, as you admittedly took to comment on my post ^_^.
I enjoyed your short analysis, and am glad to see that you referenced [i]Cezanne’s Doubt[/i]. Though I’m not intimately familiar with it, I do recall it from my studies. The thing is, that having been a student of philosophy, and being an artist gives me the opportunity to look at some of these things from both sides. That in itself is certainly an interesting vantage point.
At any rate, I too am somewhat tired (which happened rather quickly) of the games/art debate. When it comes down to it, definitions of are have become completely relative since the introduction of post-modernism. It no longer matters what is and isn’t art I think. As such, and due to my experience, I have come to the understanding that ALL things are art. Literally.
What distinguishes these things is not their inherent nature, or any other attribute for that matter. Instead, it is our perception of these things which then results in us dubbing it art or not. That being said, we have a very elaborate system in place for categorizing these things, based on their attributes as to what kind of art we’re talking about. This entire system is a construct of subjectivity, yet it exists nonetheless.
It’s all built on preference, which in turn is based on experience, and it’s all in a constant state of flux. After all, the art I thought was great ten years ago is not what I hold in the highest regard today. In the years to come, it will still all be quite different. So that makes me wonder how much difference it all really makes.
Basically, I would suggest that it will continue to always be relative. The determining factor here is what you are trying to achieve. If you are going for raising the standards of intellectualism, then there’s an art for that. If you’re trying to make people feel warm and fuzzy inside, then there’s an art for that. So I have things in life which I think are important, though I don’t always have them conceptualized in a neat little philosophical package, and there’s art which suits my needs and purpose too.
In the end, everything I’ve said about relativism etc. sounds too much like a cop-out. It doesn’t feel at all solid, but the more I delve into it I am always struck by that same wall, coming to that same conclusion. Well, conclusion may not be the right word. “Point” may be more accurate.
And now that I have calmed down a bit, I think I will come to a close. As you can see I get a little carried away with these things, ^_^. Now, what may be of further interest to you is the article I just finished working on. I would like to think that it goes more in-depth in its analysis, as you have noted above. You can find it right here, and hopefully you won’t be disappointed.
Thank you for your comment on my post, and hopefully we’ll meet again on the webs.
July 27, 2007 at 12:08 pm
chris
Great to have comments from an experienced philosopher/artist. You picked up exactly on the kinds of issues that I tried to hint at in the post. Basically, what I’ve been attempting is taking an aesthetic approach/perspective on gaming, and understanding all aspects of gaming through that lens.
Of course, I hope I didn’t intimate that inherent attributes or properties might distinguish art from non-art, but I did find Rod Humble’s argument compelling nonetheless. What makes his argument different from claims about inherent properties (ie. “this painting is artful because it follows the expressionist style”), but rather his argument is that our personal experience of ‘being moved’ by something, or ’seeing the world differently’ after experiencing a work of art is the standard. I think (inter)personal standards are a major step away from objective properties, and this is one example of how a post-modernist perspective can bring new light to games-as-art.
And, this is probably fit for a whole post of its own - but what I find crucial in some visionary art (some games, for instance) is the ability to return to a game, book, or fine art piece, and find something new and profound in it.
The role for philosophy here, I hope, isn’t to categorize, package or conceptualize experience for the sake of it alone. Rather, I envision this kind of work (ie, analyzing games and writing about it) as an exercise in bringing to the foreground some of the assumptions that we used to take for granted. And in that way, game developers have new options to work with when they start new projects.
Thanks for the comment Michal. I look forward to hearing more.