My main disagreements with Jesse Schell’s lecture:

1. Right now external rewards are an ‘ooh shiny’ within culture.  We have struck some gold with the vein of behavioral psychology, and now everyone is rushing in believe there is gold enough for eternity in there somewhere.  The mind is being cracked open like some blue ocean market.  If there’s anything we know about these things it’s that they saturate.  With each further achievement system that latches on to our daily lives, the rewards become less and less novel.  After enough of them, the benefits will settle down into the background noise of our daily motivations.  Like any drug, the brain develops a tolerance.  Assuming his dystopian vision comes to pass, those reward system will be background noise – expected within any new system or promotion, but not a bullet point feature.  When opening up a new airline company, saying that you have offer frequent flier miles isn’t going to turn any heads.  We’ve dealt with reward structures that have turned background before, and like other drugs, there will need to be an escalation to get any attention.
2. The escalation won’t be more of the same.  Eventually while spelunking in the brain, something new will come along – another ‘ooh shiny’ that will no doubt be the topic of some future ominous keynote.  If anything, external reward schemes aren’t the future, they’re the emerging present.  If we put all our best minds on sapping this gold vein for all its worth, no one will ever find that minerals like uranium might have their value.
3. Many good game designers ARE working on the problem right now and to say that they aren’t present in the field is a bit insulting.  What’s important is that we push the discourse in the direction that benefits both games AND society as a whole.  We as game designers have the power to prevent this rat-and-pellet scenario by pushing the persuasive envelope in the right direction.  There will be no shortage of marketers cum game designers willing to tweak the spreadsheet pivot a bit more.
4. Reward structures are only ONE of the many neural motivators for gaming, and while the most basic and exploitable with our current understanding, they do not represent the true power of games.  If anything we’ve learned from the last decade or two of ludology it’s that games and learning are inexplicably linked – creating reward mechanisms that are devoid of learning and the introduction of new elements seems backwards.  In the old ‘depth and breadth’ game design metric, achievement systems for brushing your teeth have neither – the entire ruleset is one item long and mastery is immediate.  Sure the ‘game’ is in taking advantage of the system as a whole, not just the teeth part, but without learning and mastery how soon will it get stale?  Most facebook games lose my interest after a short while for this reason – I feel I’ve learned everything there is to learn and the rest is just rote repetition.  We’ve fought to elevate this (to some notable successes) within the Free to play and MMO arenas.  Why does he think our future is to give up these efforts and succumb to age old formulas?

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Schell, but I can’t see this one as much more than fear mongering – stirring the pot.  Based on the amount of ‘check this out’ and ‘awesome video’ tweets and the general lack of criticism, I can’t say he’s succeeded.  In summing up, I think the trend is exactly as he put it – but this is a short term trend (really just the last two years) in a long term history of games.  Remember with Full Motion Video was the future of games?  Virtual Reality?  Hyperbole is dangerous, but the exercise of it for sake of argument is good in that it gets people thinking.  Just because the current trend is moving in this one direction does not invalidate all other work and studies that have come before regarding future predictions.

Source: Matter Feast

• 3 Source – Silicon, Germanium, Diamond, Supercarbons, Rare Crystals and Metals (1cm2)
• 2 Source – Carbon-based Life, Petrocarbons, Fossils, Ferrous Metals, Graphite, Coal, Soot (10cm2)
• 1 Source – Anything Else (100cm2)

Abilities

Differential 3

Synthesize

Consume

Kinesis

Sculpt

Source: Wu Wei

Abilities:

Shadowstep 5

Imbalance

Disrupt

Divide Heaven

Phantom Recourse

Empty Mind

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhpn5xkg_44g9fpxwsj

The game becomes more usable and coherent as you go along.

Normally it makes sense to introduce concepts to the player in a nice smooth logarithmic/sigmoid fashion to optimize learning.  A game begins as simple as it can and adds complexity after enough time to digest the previous mechanics has passed, limiting the amount of instantaneous new mechanics.  However, with Little King’s story, nearly every time a new feature was added (especially in the early stages of the game)… I felt like it was a convenience issue or it was long overdue.

Each time a feature was added it didn’t feel so much like a new thing to learn, but a shortcut to a boring or frustratingly impossible task previously.  It feels as if they started with the final game and removed interface and features until they arrived at the beginning.  Some may feel this is a sound design methodology, but I do not.  The beginning experience is the most cruicial to the game – it can be looked at as a subtractive version of the game’s concepts, but it should be just as compelling as later play.  On examining this I noticed even I noticed some conflicting viewpoints on this issue, even within myself.

On one side, the beginning should be representative of the gameplay, pure and enjoyable in its own right.  This is especially true of casual games and seems to come from the casual game part of my brain.  The idea is that there is no immediate ‘end’ which you are going to, you are enjoying the gameplay as it is and as it progresses.  To me, this is the very zen-like concept that attracts me to more mechanics-based and casual games to begin with.

On the flip side, if you’ve designed a game that has a degree of complexity to it, you can’t give it all up at once.  So, like any good school – you introduce a problem, then a skill, and then test for application (designers take note: it’s more effective to introduce the problem before the skill than the other way around).  This method leads to a very ‘tutorialish’ beginning, especially if condensed together (skill-skill-skill-game vs skill-game-game-skill-game-game).

Neither side is wrong, but there’s definitely some nuances in the approach that make it worth exploring further.  As much as I do truly enjoy Little King’s Story, I did feel like I was playing through about 5 hours of a mediocre / frustrating / aimless game to get to a more polished, enjoyable game later – and I didn’t even know that was going to pan out that way through the first 5 hours (not quite like begrudgingly sitting through tutorials).

Regardless of the design method with respect to the beginning (additive or subtractive), one should never skip polishing the beginning and examining it from a ‘what if this were all it was’ viewpoint.

The biggest difficulty I tend to find in discussions on this subject is that people aren’t always aware of what it is they are asking nor do they come to the discussion table with a shared set of definitions.  I am going to attempt to clean up this mess a bit with some simple logical statements and metrics, peppered with just a bit of subjective thought process.  So first off:

What is Art?

Perhaps the biggest culprit is a unclear definition of Art.  If only this were a problem limited to those discussing it as it applies to video games.  The true definition of art has been argued for quite some time (see also Aesthetics).  I’m going to try to pluck off the relevant issues.

Art can mean a reference to a field of study, a technique related to creative skill as relates to aesthetics, a product or work of art, or more colloquially ‘fine art’.  We’re going to need to pick or build a definition.  How about the first line in the Wikipedia entry – it’s gotta be the most relevant, right?

“Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions“.

Yup, games definitely do this!  We’re done!  The answer is yes!   Not so fast.

There is much debate about this subject so it can’t possibly be that simple… Let’s try another definition.  How about Britannica Online’s defintion:

“the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others.” [my italics]

Well that one seems to fit with games pretty easily.  I don’t seem to be getting very far with this, so I’m going to work on my own definition.   I’ll use existing things that we readily call art as a way of removing away that which it is NOT, leaving that which it is.  Likewise, if the definition excludes things we conventionally call art, then the definition itself will be invalidated.

Is art a physical object?  No, or else music or performance would not be art.  Is it creative skill or technique?  No.  It cannot be simply a technique.  If you go a gallery to appreciate art, this definition works (appreciating the technique), but if you then buy the art, you are not buying the technique.  So clearly it is neither the sum of its materials nor the sum of its techniques – it is neither simply artwork or artistry.  What ties the two together but is wholly neither?  Well a concept does.  Concepts can be equated to thoughts and words.  Are words alone art?  Just a series of words strung together?  No, we do not call this art.  However, words written down or spoken can be poetry, which is definitely art.  So what is the difference between the intrinsic set of concepts floating along and that which we call art?

Well, both written and spoken word have the potential to communicate the concept from one individual to another.  So if I walk up to you and say something, is this art?  The problem here is that the communication is direct.  What if I yell the same words to a crowd, indirectly?  Now this is could be either performance art or the actions of a crazy person (or both).  We are now very close to the great writer Leo Tolstoy’s definition of art:

“a use of indirect means to communicate from one person to another”.

I like to call this ‘proxy communication’.  Or in diagrammatic form:

Artist -> Medium -> Audience

Does it really need an audience?  Must a work of art be shown to one other than the original artist?  If an artist paints a work and it is left in their attic, and their house is bulldozed, did the work of art exist?  This is doubly ponderous if the artist is also a mime. Well, here we can satisfy that formula to say that perhaps the artist was also the audience.  But is this cheating?   Well, consider a person talking to themselves (casually like assurances into the mirror, not schizophrenia).  That is direct communication from yourself to yourself.  However, if that same person wrote a diary, and perhaps drew a sketch in a diary to try to express their feelings (to be later read by themselves again long after they do not recall the original feeling), then that is indirect communication and as such we can call it art.

The Law and Order of Subliminal Intent

How about intent?  Do we need to intend on making art to make art?  Do we need to know what it is we are communicating before we do it?  This is an issue of great debate in the past century or so (longer than that, but it’s been heating up), therefore let’s try to find an example that predates the debate.

Marbling (Japanese Suminagashi or Turkish Ebru for example) is considered to be an art form.  Here, clearly the desire to create a work of art represents intent, but the communicated message or the form is not fully under control of the artist.  In a way, it could be said the the medium is communicating back and forth with the artist during the process of creation – a dialogue instead of a transcription.  Modern art methods such as Generative Art wholly embrace this two-way dialogue.  Many are familiar with the works of Jackson Pollock who is quoted as saying:

“When I am in my painting, I’m not aware of what I’m doing. It is only after a sort of ‘get acquainted’ period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well.”

Jackson Pollock - One: Number 31, 1950

Pollock abandoned titles for his pieces, referring to them by number instead.  He did so because he wanted the viewer to:

“…look passively and try to receive what the painting has to offer and not bring a subject matter or preconceived idea of what they are to be looking for.”

Then what about the purity of the message or concept?  Is art a failure if the concept is not communicated correctly?  Well clearly, taking Pollock’s work as an example, the message can be entirely hidden from view leaving the audience to interface with the work without much of the artist’s original work’s message – quite likely deriving a new different meaning for every viewer.

Interactive Media

Let us also look at other interactive art media:  take theatre or musical peformance for example.  There are many plays (most of the vaudeville style for example) which require some form of audience participation (by walking amongst the audience, or requesting BOOs and YAYs).  A musicians’ song is a basic medium, but when the audience is asked to sing along, the audience becomes like the artist and contributes to the medium.  In fact both the artist’s emotions and the tone of the piece can be altered based on the audience, resulting in a notably different work.  Improvisational theatre and music, like improv comedy or jazz, take this a step further – the genesis of the work is entirely situated in the environment, the mood of the artists and audience.  So it cannot be said that the audience only receives the medium.

Now diagram looks like this:

Artist <-> Medium <-> Audience

In face, this two-way dialog with the medium from either perspective can be called “engagement”, and it is a major component of video games.

I’m going to go a bit further and bring up a few more forms of modern art.  Interactive Art is one type of art that is highly interactive for the audience.  In fact, examples can be found like the mirrors of Daniel Rozin, that require an audience to function.  His go beyond this and place the audience member as the subject of the art.  This is not different from the process of playing many video games, wherein a proxy for the player (an avatar) is rendered into the game to serve as the subject.

One can go back to the early Dada movement (and also later Surrealism, Pop-art, and Conceptual Art) to see some of the crucial arguments for the audience as a participant.  Dadaism, according to many of its founders, was not art at all, it was anti-art.  It became a way of turning the tables on the audience, offending them into further thought.  In much of Dada,  it can be seen that far more communication and engagement with the medium can be seen on the audience side of the equation, typically in the form of angry art critics, confused patrons, and in some cases police intervention.  Some clear examples of this playful prodding can be seen in Duchamp’s Fountain, Magritte’s The Treachery of Images, and Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup I.

René Magritte - The Treachery Of Images

There have been myriads of art movements and submovements since, and art has been transforming itself from a discipline to an dialogue.  Things we recognize as art now steal from nearly all other walks of life, and can take innumerable forms.  Some fields that are of especially high interest to the video game discussion are Information Art, Systems Art, and Internet Art (thanks Brenda Brathwaite for pointing me specifically to Systems Art).  Sociology has also been making leaps and bounds in the last few decades and has had some notable influence upon art.  Art is now more readily accepted as something that can be collaborative in nature and is no longer confined to the definition of a single producer (artist) and multiple consumers (audience).

By this mark, I feel it is not a leap at all to reduce my previous definition to simply this: “engagement with a communication medium”

Artist/Audience <-> Medium

To define art as any narrower a definition would exclude things that are already accepted as art by historians and much of society (though sometimes begrudgingly).  Much of the linguistics and neuroscience devotee in me feels that a definition of art without reference to Pattern or Metaphor is quite possibly incomplete, but perhaps those are implied in the engagement/observation.

Oh Ricky You’re So Fine Art

Well, games are clearly engagement with a communication medium, so why do people insist that they are not art?  Most likely because one of the common definitions of ‘art’ is actually meant to be interpreted as ‘fine art‘.  So what’s the difference?  Here’s where we start falling into ontological ooze.

Fine Art is a tag meant for art which is primarily created for concept or aesthetics, not utility.  However, this is a gray area.  Definitions of fine art routinely include conceptual art, which has a history as a vehicle for social change (and hence, conceptual utility).  They also routinely include interactive art and forms we’re already seen to be closely related to video games.  There’s also a lot of disagreement as to what classifies as fine art and this tends to be highly subjective.

So what isn’t Fine Art?  Well, other than things that intentionally shun the title (for example Lowbrow works), the ‘not-its’ tend to be labeled as a Craft, as Design, or as Commercial Art.  The term craft is applied to a wide range of artistic endeavors of varying utility and sometimes to a fine art form in the hands of an amateur or hobbyist.  Very often, to me the distinction between Craft and Art seems to lie with whether the medium and materials fit within the doctrine of western art history or not (though that never stopped Conceptual Art).  A range of conventional examples:

• Photography is labeled as a Fine Art, but not in the hands of an amateur (your flickr is not an accredited gallery)
• Fashion Design is labeled as Design, but Haute Couture is anything but utility (primarily aesthetics and concept)
• Architecture can be a Fine Art and/or Design, depending on who you are or who the client is

Often times people say that commercial art and design are driven by the client and by the money paid for the work.  Another argument is that design is art with a time or resource constraint.  These arguments don’t hold well, as Michelangelo resented the commission of the Sistine Chapel, believing it only to serve the Pope’s desire for extravagance.  It is perhaps the thing he is most well known for today, and yet it was money that drove its creation.  The Sistine Chapel was done with a deadline and specifications for a price.  It was not a gift to the world by a humble demigod seeking to further the humanities. And this example brings up yet another ontological quandry:

The Ensemble

What is ‘the work’ in this case?  Is it the fresco?  Dozens of different painters have done fresco work on this chapel.  Is it the paintings on the walls?  Is it the architecture itself?  Is it a collective single work or can it not even be referenced as one?   To steal from one of Ian Bogost’s tweets: what is a fajita?  is it the meat?  the tortillas?  the combination?

Take a simple case: framed art.  Is the frame part of the artwork or is it auxiliary?  If they are the art together, and the framing is considered a craft and not a fine art, then can the ensemble ever be a fine art or a craft?  Textile art and wearable art are another example.  We may consider the garment design and tailoring fashion design, the act of dyeing it a craft and the final piece and its display case in a museum as fine art.  In the case of Rozin’s mirrors above we see that lighting of the environment in which the work sits is an integral part to the work (without it the tiles would not have the different values needed to create shape).  In most three-dimensional or textural work, lighting can change the aesthetic and even meaning of a work.  Going back to the Found Art movement and Duchamp’s Fountain, you have a urinal constructed not for the purpose of art at all and only its signing and recontexting to make it art.  So a collection of elements, not all which are themselves fine art is permissible in a work of fine art.

This is what I propose that games are as a medium.  They are a collection of things: arts, crafts, and design from a variety of individuals.  People today say the ‘Sistine Chapel’ as if it were a singular piece of work.  Perhaps they are referring to Michelangelo’s contribution, but even so it could not exist on its own without a ceiling to be painted upon.  Perhaps this can be said of game developments’ ’superstars’.  Much like the many artists involved in the chapel, those involved in a game may feel like their field is the field to which people refer when praise is lavished about the work.  Writers probably feel like if/when their game is labeled as ‘fine art’ that it means the writing of course!  Designers may feel that they are the brain or heart of the game.  Artists may feel they contribute the primary aesthetics.  This is just vanity.  Now that user generated content and community driven games are common, the users are perhaps equally to credit for the success of a game.  The work must be looked on in its entirety – it would be meaningless to declare a game’s 3D art as fine art and the rest of it as a commercial work of design (though out of its context it is entirely possible to frame game art as visual art and display it there as fine art alone, as with most of the other components).

Culture Wars: The Game

In my opinion, the distinctions between craft, fine art, commercial, design, and others are based on cultural homophily primarly.   Fine art is that which is done in the societal context of other recognized fine artists.  Design is the term for those comfortable with the term design and excited about its implications.  Cultures determine their standards and their definitions.  This is not limited to subjectively treated fields such as art.  See how physicist Lee Smolin describes how we ratify scientific “facts” within the scientific community.  Newer generations decide the results of these quandaries as the older ones wane from power.

Gamers are no longer a subculture, the act of gaming is prevalent throughout greater culture.  The generation of gamers being the norm, not the exception is here already.  Therefore it is WE who can set these standards.  If we feel that games are fine art, then we shall declare it as so until the dissenting voices fall to time.

Who exactly are we waiting for to declare games are art, so suddenly we can breathe easily again?

Lastly, when I hear ‘are games art’ cries on the blogosphere… more than half of the time I feel it’s just a baiting tactic to get commenters riled up, and not after any genuine introspection on the matter.  It often feels like the statement that is being posted in today’s 15-minute news cycle is actually more like “are games art.. YET?” – like the stereotypical child in the backseat.

Well, we have a good way of dealing with issues of progress: Metrics.

Metrics

Instead of asking whether games are art now due to some new release that everyone has their pants wet about, we should be setting up a series of metrics that can help us determine whether we are making progress in this cultural push.  Many of these are just simple true/false questions (Are? Can? Is? Possible?):

• Are games capable of making social commentary?
• Can games be timeless media and experiences?
• Can games convey metaphor?
• Are games composed of patterns?
• Is it possible to create a game that is subject to unique subjective interpretation/experience?
• Can a game evoke an emotional response on par with (pick your pet fine art media)
• Is it possible to create a game that stirs intellectual discussion?
• Can games be self aware / meta?  (see: The Treachery of Images)
• Can games convey an experience beyond the ordinary?
• Can games be intensely life-like facsimiles? (Realism)
• Are games considered to be an artistic medium by their creators?
• Is it possible to create a game as a form of self expression?
• Is it possible to sustain a living wage due to the high appreciation of the medium?
• Is the act of working on them creative?  (hello EA lawsuit)

By examining the questions, we further the discourse.  The trick is to come up with questions that are ‘yes’ for fine art and ‘no’ for games.  In addition, more chartable metrics will provide the progress and guidance (qualitative data):

• What ratio of those polled believe that games as a medium are ‘art’? (in the conventional usage of the word)
• If not all games are believed to be art, what is the ratio of games that are considered so (via statistics/polling)?  compared to other media?
• What is the volume of standing work that desires the label fine art or is considered so
• What is the public visibility for appreciation of the medium when compared with others (museums, award shows, etc)
• How many game art exhibitions/museums/galleries are there?
• How many game PLAY exhibitions/museums/galleries are there?
• How much discussion and art criticism is leveled at games
• How do games affect (positively or negatively) society (as conceptual art oft endeavors)
• Who is asking the questions or feels that games should be called art?
• How many attendees at appreciation festivals (IGF vs Sundance)

The other thing we of course need is a lot of work from the development community and the media.  When examining movies, the field it seems that is most often compared to video games (this link I find somewhat dubious..), it is evident that a system of nomenclature exists to highlight art.  Very often the categories of Foreign Film and Independent are considered to be genres of above-average artistry.  An entire television channel (Sundance Channel) is devoted to these genres.  Thanks to digital distribution, games are starting to see a stronger Indie genre as well.  Within films, Action is often considered a genre of low artistry – the works may be more about making a bang and a buck than a statement – but the field of Film is not run over the coals as a ‘commercial endeavor not worthy of a fine art label’ due to this genre.  We will always have games that have no interest in the ‘fine’ label of art, but they are still art, and that can be said of all mediums (yes even painting – that verb is also used when you paint a house).

Conclusion

If this label is something we’re looking to achieve as an industry or as a cultural integration, then most importantly we need to raise the discourse and meld with those who hold the keys to the label: other artists, critics, professors.  Everyone who engages in this discourse can benefit from a constant study of Art History (I believe it should be a requirement for the whole industry but baby steps here), Aesthetics and Sociology (again likewise, especially transformative culture stuff like Clay Shirky).  I don’t say this to be elitist – I think this lingering question is a great excuse for action.  If these labels are a cultural artifact, then we need to integrate with the fine art culture and no better way than to become better appreciators and creators of art ourselves (extending our hands first – not being standoffish to the academic world).

Well that about does it for my rant.

May the art be with you!

Disorderly genius: How chaos drives the brain
A great discussion about back channel and multitasked learning
A bunch of links about games and neuroanthropology

and because no post is complete without cats:
House cats and psychological purring