Here is a list of some of the resources and sites referenced in the show:

Ernest Adams' homepage: The Designer's Notebook
James Gee's Games + Learning + Society page at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Henry Jenkins' website at MIT
Ernest Adams' Gamasutra article, "You Must Play Façade, Now!"
Henry Jenkins' article, "Games, the New Lively Art"
Kyle Orland's article, "It's Our Fault Video Games Aren't Considered Art"
Homepage for A Tale In The Desert
Next Generation's coverage of OPM's James Mielke interview with Hideo Kojima: "Games Are Not Art"
Jeremy Parish of ToastyFrog.com's case for games as art: "Wherefore art?"
Digital Eel's Weird Worlds: Strange Adventures in Infinite Space homepage and links.
Bethesda Softworks' The Elder Scrolls.

Merriam-Webster's definition of art is: "The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced."

-----

I recently read James Mielke's excellent interview with visionary game designer and producer, Hideo Kojima in the February issue of The Official U.S. Playstation Magazine. In the course of their conversation, Mielke and Kojima get into a brief discussion on Roger Ebert's assessment that videogames can never be viewed as art.

Before you all start flaming Hideo Kojima on the subject -- Roger Ebert has already received his share of irate rebuttal -- I believe it is instructive to understand his and Ebert's viewpoints. (By the way, I do not feel that flaming people who offer opinions that might be perceived to be anti-gaming, or that simply do not coincide with your own is productive. If you must lodge a complaint, for the sake of the industry you represent, please try to do so in a civil, well-reasoned, and even handed manner.)

Ebert says that: "...I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control...[T]he nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship [however elegant or sophisticated] to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers... for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

In typical Japanese fashion, Kojima is rather elliptical in his reply: "...art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

Although I feel that Kojima's thesis differs in significant ways from Ebert's, they share a notion that art is an expression of an individual: an "artist." And that the intention of this expression is intrinsic to the definition of "art." It is unstated, but implied that the artist intends for his or her expression to be rather singular in intent and interpretation. In Ebert's case, this falls under the assertion of "authorial control." In Kojima's case, he explains that he is merely providing "a canvas and paint and the paintbrushes" as a "service" to the people who play the game; that the expression of the medium is not coming from the creator of the medium, but rather from its participants. But Ebert offers the additional claim that the act of playing games holds no inherent value.

My personal opinion is that Ebert and Kojima both advance a rather narrow definition of art. If you ask a bunch of academics, critics, or artists themselves to provide you with a pithy definition of art -- or perhaps more specifically, fine art -- you will probably get as many answers as respondents.

According to Henry Jenkins: "Let's be clear here. All games are art...In a superficial sense, we could point to examples (of in-game assets) which could be described as professionally competent and well-produced. In a higher sense, we look for works that create new expressive experiences or push a medium to places it hasn't gone before."

From Ebert and Kojima's perspective, perhaps these goals aren't possible without an artist's embedded intention or narrative. To simply hand over the medium, whether it be canvas and paint, or pixels and input device to an experiencer in their view, removes an essential component of what makes art, "art." Namely, the intrinsic, guiding hand of the artist. Rather than the extrinsic, emergent qualities found in interactive entertainment.

Personally, I acknowledge that we haven't yet seen many examples of the medium which could be generally described as "works of art," at least as understood by a consensus view of what is considered canonical art. But I would like to allow that video and computer games might start to define an emerging notion of a unique kind of commentary or experience, due to the very fact that a participant has more direct input on the experience itself. Particularly in the fields of emergent drama or storytelling or interactive performance with other people. Such as in the case of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games, like World of Warcraft.

And even in the case of single-player games, the craft and artistry of the game designer could define a rich and directed experience illuminating the general human condition, the creator's comment on his or her world, or reflective of the medium itself. Professor James Gee views games as being a particular kind of virtually-embodied performance art, where there is a unique interaction between the intention of the game designer providing "a trajectory of choices," and the game player.

In other words, James Gee and Henry Jenkins assert that the interactive experience in itself can be described as artistic, and games as a form of art wholly deserving of inherent value as an experience, in the same manner as film, or novels, or other works that are generally accepted as art. And, I would like to note, as deserving of First Amendment protections as any other form of expression. A point which obviously is lost on many politicians, moral reformers, and anti-game crusaders and special interest groups.

As far as the elements that comprise that experience, such as the visual components of 2D and 3D design, animation, music, sound, and storytelling can also be artistic, I do not separate the granular components of the medium from the overall interactive experience. Any more than I would separate the screenplay, cinematography, editorial, musical score, acting, set design, title design, or any other granular component from film. Nor would I make the same qualitative comparisons between, say the style and quality of writing in a screenplay and the prose of a novel.

All parts work in complete communication of an experience unique to the medium they service. In this way, my personal thesis of games as art differs from Kojima's. Kojima makes the analogy of a videogame as being comparable to a museum: "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum -- how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

It is my opinion that Mr. Kojima sorely understates the importance of his role. In my view, he is not a mere curator. He is an artist. And not just of "the art that's displayed in the museum," but of the holistic experience itself. He is a wonderful game designer, and should acknowledge the significance of his accomplishments as far as he is clearly embracing the weight of his role in creating compelling experiences. I also feel that a very public assertion that games are not art coming from one of our most visionary game designers only serves to hurt the medium. I am sorry he feels that way. I am even sorrier that he broadcasts these feelings to the enthusiast press, his fans, and by extension, the non-gaming world.

This might get to a notion of his humility. Earlier in the interview, he explained that most of the Japanese press call into question the title that most of his fans confer on him. The adoring otaku refer to him as, "Kojima-kantoku." The word, kantoku loosely translates to "director," as in film director. In Japan, film directors such as Akira Kurosawa are revered as bona-fide artists. So the question is intended to ask if Kojima, himself thinks of himself as being in the same league as a film director. And by extension, videogames as being in the same league as film. In Japan, as in America, the public consensus is that videogames are an inferior medium compared to film. So I wonder how much of his assertion is deferring to the general view, so as not to appear unduly arrogant.

In games, I propose that developers and game designers have an obligation to explore the medium's unique interactive elements, and to strive to understand the aesthetics and push the limits of those components. And apply what they learn toward the question of why they are creating the game in the first place. If the medium is to move forward, developers and designers should start to ask themselves these questions of intent, and regard what they are creating as worthy of the effort.

Kojima himself comes up with an interesting example: an unbeatable videogame: "Maybe let's say there's a game out there where there's a boss that you cannot defeat. It's made that way. Normally, when you beat the boss in a game, there's a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, but if you can't beat the boss at all, if what you're left with is a sense of loss, then maybe that could be defined as art." But, he goes on to caveat his example by saying: "That's why you want to think about art and videogames. I think the lousiest videogames can be considered art. Because bad games with no fun aren't really games, by definition."

Again, I would disagree. For now, our notion of games might require that they perform as consumer artifacts; as lightweight, escapist pieces of entertainment; as toys. But if we were to expand the range of what is considered a worthwhile experience in playing a game, the measure of mere commercial success as a defining precondition of "quality" for a game may no longer need apply. People might not aesthetically appreciate the atonal music of Philip Glass, but few would say that atonal music is completely without merit simply because the experience itself isn't widely accessible.

Don't get me wrong. I still understand that we're talking about games, here. But that might be part of the problem. Right now, almost any interactive piece that runs with the assistance of a computer or console is called a "game." With that moniker comes the assumption that the work is merely a trifle -- an amusement.

I don't propose that we add a new description to the lexicon which would only serve to confuse people and make the game industry appear overly full of itself. (Maybe I have a little empathy for Kojima's humility, after all.) Witness the comic book industry trying to rebrand their work as "sequential art" in the "graphic novel" format. Though I have the highest respect for the fine artists who have contributed to that field such as Will Eisner and Frank Miller, their PR efforts didn't work. And comics remain a niche medium in the States. It is my opinion that the video and computer game industry have already achieved more mainstream status than the comic book industry, anyway. But we still have a ways to go. Cultural awareness does not equal respect.

For now, we might as well keep the appellation and strive to improve the inherent worth of the experiences. After all, the term, "rock and roll" was originally a pejorative description of the form.

As in rock music, film, or other forms of popular mass media that are generally accepted as art, it is my opinion that it may be much more difficult to create a work that has universal appeal, and that can also be generally regarded as having high artistic merit. As opposed to creating something that is a fascinating piece of art, but that only appeals to a limited set of individuals. I'm just saying that I might play a game -- experience an interactive work of art -- and "get something out of it" that is worthy of the experience, but that might not be described purely in terms of "fun factor." Just like I might find it difficult to read the prose of James Joyce's Ulysses, but still find the experience valuable enough to re-read the novel in spite of my initial discomfort.

New York artist, Cory Arcangel has already mounted a few interactive exhibits, one of which fits Kojima's bill. By changing a few bits of GameBoy code, Archangel created the agonizing, nearly unplayable, "Super Slow Tetris." Archangel's pieces rely on the penetration of Nintendo's classic 8-bit era properties into cultural consciousness to create a referential kind of art that comments on the fact that videogames have officially entered Postmodernity. Even if one isn't a gamer, some of Arcangel's pieces, such as "Super Mario Clouds" have a certain aesthetic elegance and an almost impressionistic effect on the viewer.

Incidentally, this, and other interesting topics are covered in the December 9, 2005 episode of WNYC's Studio 360 which explores the topic of videogames.

One segment of the show highlights the use of games as military training simulators. These simulators elicited highly emotional responses from their participants. If that reaction could be directed to an intention of exploring unique and significant experiences, we might start to explore and expand the range of the medium's capabilities. To quote segment producer, Rachel McCarthy: "Perhaps the one big difference may be the intent of the player: a game is only just a game when the person using it chooses to see it that way."

-Tom

Our January 12th panel discussion on Games as an Emerging Art with Professor Henry Jenkins of M.I.T.'s Comparative Media Studies program, Professor James Gee of the University of Wisconsin Madison, and Ernest Adams. (c) 2005-2006 Tom Kim, Inc.

Here is a list of some of the resources and sites referenced in the show:

Dennis McCauley's GamePolitics.com
International Game Developers Association
The IGDA's key points on anti-censorship
Jason Della Rocca's article, "Regulation Is Everyone's Business"
Matthew Sakey's Culture Clash column
Kyle Orland's Video Game Media Watch
Entertainment Software Association (ESA)
Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB)
Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA)
The IEMA's Government Advocacy page
National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF)
The NIMF's 10th Annual Media Report Card on the video and computer game industry
Henry Jenkin's article at PBS.org, "Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked"
GameDaily.biz's article on FEPA, and the industry response.
The Onion article, "New Video Game Designed To Have No Influence On Kids' Behavior"

In this episode, Steve and I get to riff a little on our take on the legislation issue.

It is Steve's opinion that an addition of brief descriptions of action to the ESRB's summary of representational content would be helpful to parents, and possibly toward allaying some of the criticisms of the ratings system from politicians and special interest groups. Also, that such a listing of interactions would serve to point out the differences between games and other more "passive" media such as movies.

It is my opinion that this might be a dangerous move, especially if it proves to play into the political agenda of groups such as the National Institute for Media and the Family, who have proposed to replace the ESRB ratings with just such a system. The question becomes, who is doing the rating, and how is that rating listed? Steve contends that this should be the ESRB. But consider that if the MPAA listed out all of the actions taken by the lead characters in most popular movies, one might think that the only people who watch movies are voyeristic sociopaths.

My point is, detached from the context of the experience, even the most objective interactive ratings system loses a lot of accuracy, and thus utility.

I do think he raises a valid issue in terms of assessing the difference between games and other media. However, I don't necessarily classify other media as being "non-interactive." All media requires some participation from the reader or viewer or listener, in that we all interpret our exposure to media differently. Two people could watch the same movie and have completely different impressions and interpretations of the same material.

Scott McCloud contends that most of the interaction between a reader of comics and sequential art takes place between the panels of the page, as the mind fills in the actions that aren't explicitly displayed. Or, for a more simple example, Hollywood directors always have the problem of adapting written works to the screen because every audience member already has an internal subjective view or expectation of what they have read in the novel.

So in this sense, although games are more interactive in that they require direct real-time feedback and response from and to the system, they are not the only medium that requires participation from the experiencer. I also do not believe it would be productive to get into a debate over who's medium is better than who's.

I don't think it is the ESRB's place to devise such a system, seeing as the parents who are concerned about the ratings are mostly thinking about the representational, rather than the interactive content of games in the first place. The difficulty is that coming up with succinct descriptions of such actions can be highly subjective. As I have already stated, such a ratings system would present those actions out of context of a person playing the game. Also, much of this information can already be gathered simply by looking at the screen captures and copy on the back of the game packaging, where such information takes up far more space than the ESRB rating. And lastly, parents already aren't interpreting the existing rating that's already prominently displayed on posters, brochures, and counter cards, as well as the front and back of the packaging itself. So the probable answer is not to make that ratings system even more complex.

The real answer, I feel, is public awareness. The reason the MPAA ratings have been generally accepted is because they have the momentum of over 30 years of being in the public's mindshare. So although it can be argued that the MPAA ratings are equally subjective, there is a general understanding that it may be inappropriate to bring a minor to an R-rated movie. Also, as Jason Della Rocca pointed out, the public assumes the film ratings work because the retail and distribution chain of motion pictures -- movie theaters -- has a much higher incidence of compliance to enforcing their ratings system. A system which is, by the way, put out by a subsidiary of the film industry whose enforcement is completely voluntary.

I invite our listeners to weigh in with their points on the issue. In the meanwhile, we hope you enjoy the second part of our panel.

-Tom

Steve Replies: My Turn to Weigh In...

Games :Are: Interaction

My suggestion that the ESRB include information related to the interactive content of the games they review is the most relevant facet of a larger desire I have regarding gaming in general: the perception of games as influential on the minds of young players -- the same concerns that brought about the founding of the ESRB in the first place.

The ESRB currently assays games for graphical and audio content. Profanity, provocative imagery, and of course violent themes are singled out and detailed on the package for the ease of understanding of people who might not get that information from the screenshots or feature descriptions on the box (or who don't read them in the first place). I believe it is just as, if not more important to detail similar information about the interactive content of the game in question, to help the consumer understand the kinds of activities depicted by the interaction between player and game.

Many WW2 shooters have descriptions on the ESRB label like "Violence and Gore," "Blood," or "Adult Themes." But a game about Emergency Room medicine could have similar descriptors, though the interactive content is completely different. The packaging could be identical to the eyes of a parent purchasing a product, but a game where the player is a battlefield medic attempting to save lives on the beaches of the Normandy invasion has very different messages than one where the goal is to create casualties.

I think the language used to create these descriptors already exists; it is very similar to the language already in use by the ESRB. "Lifelike Violence" is different from "Animated Violence," but the difference between violence enacted on humans or humanoid fictional characters (like zombies or robots) is as important as the distinction on player vs. environment violence and player vs. player violence. I'd also like to know, if I were a parent, if the violence is enacted with fists, guns, swords, or cars, and if any sexual themes in a game were interactive or passive. This is the only real distinction between small niche "blue" titles and others like the Leisure Suit Larry series.

I'm not suggesting that every possible interaction be spelled out to the letter. Listing a 720 triple flip with a nosegrab as an interaction on the back of SSX would be as unnecessarily descriptive as the spelling out of evisceration and decapitations would be on the back of a Mortal Kombat title. Simply listing "Trick Snowboarding" or "Extreme Player vs. Player Unarmed Combat" would be informative enough to satisfy the concerns of the public.

The root of this argument comes from my desire to see gaming progress as an intelligent medium. The reason that Baby Boomers fear Doom is because they have no idea of what it represents to their kids. Politicians propose legislation against games because they have never played them and have to take the slanted research and worst fears of activists as truth. The public still doesn't accept games as an equivalent media to TV or cinema because they still see Frogger or Pac-Man as representative of the entire industry. And, most importantly, developers continue to make FragFest 200X because it's what they know will sell to the limited audience that pays attention to their work.

The answer to all of these ills is education. If games worthy of merit and accessible to a larger audience were billed as such by the media (including the enthusiast media), more people would learn about the possibilities for learning, expression, and entertainment offered by games. This would allow more game developers to innovate in areas other than poly-counts and frames-per-second.

If the ESRB started using descriptions of interactive content, it would send a message to parents and other consumers that games are different than movies or television. After all, while the listener to a song has to mentally interact with the tune and lyrics to interpret a message, that song would play without any input from the listener. On the other hand, start up most games and provide no input, and they many might be mistaken for a still image - there is no content without interaction from the user. Many non-gamers, parents and politicians among them, don't get that.

This message needs to get out to society at large if the medium and the industry that produces it are ever going to expand past the monoculture it has built. My argument about the ESRB is only one step that I think can advance that goal.

-Steve

Part 2 of our panel discussion on the Family Entertainment Protection Act. Plus, some listener mail, and Steve and Tom weigh in with their opinions. The audio levels are a little low, but the update took long enough to edit... Our show follows the old adage, always leave them wanting something more. Please email us at fatpixelsradio@gmail.com or visit us at http://fatpixelsradio.com (c) 2005-2006.