Here is the article that began a small internet war. If you Google "Laura Parker" + "Edward Albee" you'll see what I mean.
Originally published in The Economist's More Intelligent Life, here.
In the 50 or so years that he has been writing plays, Edward Albee has
remained unchanged as both man and playwright. This, at least, is what he said in a rare public interview at the Sydney Theatre Company earlier this year. The talk was hosted by Jonathan Biggins, an Australian theatre personality, who spent two hours asking Albee questions in front of a live audience. Having never heard the great playwright speak before, I was eager for this rare glimpse at his genius mind. What I got instead was the sense that Edward Albee is an old fogey.
According to Albee, the problem is that the world of theatre has changed in ways he disapproves of. He is especially irked by the increasing importance of a director’s vision, which is now understood to be just as valuable as what is being directed. In interviews and public speeches, Albee has been vocal about his distaste for those who neglect his strict stage directions. In his eyes, directors who foist their own vision on a production are nothing but "interpretive types that think they know our work better than we do".
Albee’s formative years were bittersweet: adopted by a very rich family who owned and managed a chain of Vaudeville theatres, he was treated to the best education that money could buy (not to mention free trips to the theatre). But he hated his adopted parents, who were racist, anti-Semitic and, worst of all (to his mind), Republicans. So he up and left New York's suburbs for the city when he was 18, and began his education in the "serious" arts, as he called them.
Literature, art, theatre and music filled his eyes and ears until one day he found himself writing his first play, "The Zoo Story" (1958), in three weeks when he was 30. Although it was rejected by producers in New York, it was successful in convincing Albee that playwriting was what he wanted to do. And there’s no denying that he has done it well. His works are biting satires of modern life and the family unit, which lay bare the tribulations of social disparity and the negative effects of an ever-changing commercial world. All in all, an heroic contribution to theatre.
During his early years Albee (pictured right in 1987) was greatly inspired by Samuel Beckett, whom he continues to revere. Albee's affinity for Beckett goes beyond their similarly dark preoccupations with the human condition. Beckett also took a hardline view of adaptations of his works. He was notoriously meticulous in his stage directions, supervising rehearsals of his plays whenever he could. He would often sideline directors to tell actors their intonations were wrong, or they were not moving the way they should, or the lights were too bright, or not bright enough. He even tried to close down one or two productions when he felt his work was being misrepresented.
Following Beckett’s death, the playwright’s licenses and rights to perform his plays fell into the hands of his nephew, Edward Beckett, who has maintained an iron-grip on his uncle’s work. He is known for refusing to grant licenses for productions that do not strictly adhere to Beckett’s stage directions.
Albee is almost certainly plotting something similar for his own legacy. He has been a vocal critic of productions that take too many liberties with his plays, such as a 2007 production of "Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"(1961-62) at Sydney’s Belvoir Street Theatre. Staged by Benedict Andrews, a young and audacious director, this version was both terrifying and brilliant. It stripped away Albee’s stage directions and set requirements, and featured a much younger cast than the script calls for. The result was pure, alcohol-fuelled psychosexual warfare, played out on a stark and sleek stage surrounded by a glass cage. It made for a perfect example of how a director’s vision can breathe new life into an old work.
Albee didn’t see it that way. He denounced Andrews’s production, comparing such changes to musicians who tell the conductor they’re improving the piece by playing it differently. “I see and hear my play on stage in my mind when I write it,” Albee told Biggins. “I expect people to perform it that way.” He then recounted a sour experience witnessing a Bulgarian production of "Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" that ran without any intervals ("Bulgarians don’t like intervals," Albee explained). Large chunks of the play were cut. Albee was outraged.
Yet on the topic of stage adaptations of Shakespeare’s works, Albee suggested that a few of the Bard’s plays could do with a trim. “We have to accept that not all Shakespeare plays are as good as others. We all know that 'Hamlet' should end with Hamlet’s death. There’s no point or need for any of that other stuff afterwards. All productions of 'Hamlet' should end with his death, but for some reason they don’t.”
The problem is not only that Albee is selective with his dismay, but that his views are so dazzlingly out of date. Theatre is an ever-growing, ever-changing medium. No progress could ever be made if everyone stuck to the rules. To interpret a work from a single point of view (that of the person who created it) is to impose an unreasonable limit on that work. Meaning doesn’t lie with the creator, but with each reader, each observer. In theatre the roles of directors and actors are increasingly important, not just for the growth of theatre but for fresh takes on old works. Albee’s wishes for ceaseless loyalty are not only difficult to implement (how can a theatre company know exactly what was intended?), but disrespectful to those directors and actors who are driving innovation in theatre.
Biggins suggested these views to Albee, but the playwright was not interested. Instead he grew increasingly rude, occasionally cutting Biggins off or ignoring a question altogether. When Albee was asked what he thought of the enduring success of "Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", the playwright's best-known play, he responded that he hates it when people ask him what his plays are about. Instead, he chose to end the discussion by stating that, like all his plays, the Virginia Woolf characters were drawn from real life and did not require too much scrutiny. “It’s just a play about university professors and their wives.”
Perhaps the same can be said for Albee. Despite his enduring impact as a playwright, it seems best not to scrutinise him too closely.
And then there was this:
ON SECOND THOUGHT ...
Earlier this month I wrote a piece about Edward Albee, a revolutionary American playwright. It got quite a response from readers. Some swore at me; some calmly pointed out that I must be out of my mind to write such things about such a great man. I laughed it off. After all, what is the value of an opinion piece if it doesn’t inspire heated discussion and the occasional angry rant sprinkled with profanity?
The trouble is that something terrible has happened since I wrote that piece. One of the main criticisms I lobbed Albee’s way was that he was too protective of his work. He wouldn’t let a director touch his plays unless he knew for certain that his original vision would not be distorted in any way. Fair enough, some might say. But where did that leave the role of the director in the creative process?
What is terrible is that I now know how Albee feels. A short time after this piece was written I found myself in the throes of a creative battle. There I was, terrified and alone, clutching my newly written work in my hands. And there he was, The Director, somewhat inexperienced and altogether too cocky, eager to rip my play to shreds with his “creative vision”.
“This is my first time,” I cooed. “I don’t know anything about writing for the theatre. Please be gentle.”
“There’s nothing to fear,” he said. “But when your play is performed, all the female parts will be played by men in drag.”
I cried for days. Is this what it’s like for new playwrights? Or am I just being stubborn and inexperienced? Shouldn’t I trust my director and his interpretation?
No, screw it. I’m fighting this.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
South Australian Attorney General speaks out on R18+
The South Australian Attorney General, Michael Atkinson, wrote this article exclusively for GameSpot AU, a few months after I requested an interview with him.
Original here.
South Australian attorney general says he is not the only classification minister to oppose R18+ classification; lauds current system's ability to "encourage modification."
For many Aussie gamers, Michael Atkinson is a deeply unpopular character. The South Australian attorney general has been a vocal critic of game violence, and he has blocked previous moves to introduce an R18+ classification for games down under. Without an R18+ classification, the highest game rating is MA 15+, which means that the Classification Board is forced to ban any game that doesn't meet that rating's standards. Australia's Standing Committee of Attorneys General (SCAG)--a board made up of all state, territory, and federal AGs--has the power to change this, but only if all members agree. Atkinson has been the most public voice of dissent among the group.
Last year, GameSpot AU contacted Atkinson to gauge his views on Australian game classification. We sent through a long list of questions (his office preferred a written interview) in an attempt to explore his side of the argument. Atkinson's written response (which we received only late last week) did not directly answer our questions, but instead outlined his overall rationale for opposing the introduction of an R18+ rating in Australia. And in a key revelation, Atkinson says that he is not the only classification minister to oppose the introduction of an R18+ rating. A spokesperson for Atkinson said that the minister has been asked by a number of other classification ministers, whom he refuses to name, to be the spokesperson in this matter. GameSpot AU has contacted all state, territory, and federal attorneys general to get their individual positions, but had not received full clarification as of time of publication.
GameSpot AU will also continue to chase Mr. Atkinson for further clarification of his position, but in the meantime, his response to our original list of questions can be read below.
South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson:
"I don't support the introduction of an R18+ rating for electronic games, chiefly because it will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages.
"The interactive nature of electronic games means that they have a much greater influence than viewing a movie does. People are participating and 'acting-out' violence and criminal behaviour when they are playing a video game. They are essentially rehearsing harmful behaviour. Children and vulnerable adults (such as those with a mental illness) can be harmed by playing video games with violence, sex, and criminal activity.
"The South Australian government takes a strong position on protecting children (and the public) from criminal behaviour, sexual abuse, and drug use. My stance on R18+ classification is in line with the policies of the Rann Government [current South Australian government] to protect children.
"Retaining the present classification scheme for electronic games is necessary because: it keeps the most extreme material off the shelves; it prevents children and vulnerable adults from being exposed to sexual abuse, criminal activity, and extreme violence in video games; it prevents children and vulnerable adults from virtual participation in sex, criminal activity, and extreme violence; and it results in game developers modifying their product for Australian and sometimes international audiences.
"I have three sons who regularly play computer games at home--the eldest is now 22. I see my children become physically and emotionally obsessed with games, and it is difficult to drag them away from the gaming console. The repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises children to violence. It makes violence part of their everyday lives and what is especially concerning is that it is their re-creation. A child being able to watch sex and violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child participating in sex and violence in a computer game is worse.
"Extreme violence, perverted sex, and criminal activity are not essential for adults to enjoy playing electronic games. There are plenty of sophisticated games that are of interest to adults. A game is not necessarily more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material, criminal activity, or offensive language. Some of the most popular and highly recommended games for adults would not be R18+ rated.
"Critics sometimes claim that I am ruining the game-development industry. There are very few computer games that are refused classification each year. In 2007/8 just three computer games were refused classification (Soldier of Fortune: Payback, Dark Sector, and Shellshock 2: Blood Trails). This represents a very small proportion of the 961 decisions made last financial year. In fact, only 55 were classified at the top existing rating of MA15+.
"Last year the makers of Grand Theft Auto IV altered the game before submitting it for an MA15+ classification, and Silent Hill: Homecoming is under revision by its makers after being knocked back by the Classification Board. The lack of an R18+ classification is not preventing very many adult-themed video games reaching the shop shelves--but it is ensuring that scenes that don't comply with a MA15+ rating are removed. I think that's a great result for consumers and has little impact on the profitability of game developers.
"Some games, such as Grand Theft Auto IV, have been modified to meet Australian standards. The present system encourages game developers to consider what is appropriate for an MA15+ rating and adjust their product accordingly. Sometimes this modified version has become the internationally distributed version.
"Some of your readers may believe that the present system restricts adult liberty. It certainly does restrict choice to a small degree, but that is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, the small sacrifice is worth it. Classification exists for advertising, films, and books for the same reason--to protect children and vulnerable people.
"In cinemas, the age of moviegoers can be regulated, and at the video store people must provide ID to hire R18+ videos. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the games are easily accessible to children. These days, older children (18-30) are often living in the family home with younger children (under 18). This means games belonging to older children or parents can easily make their way into the hands of those under 18.
"I'm concerned about the level of violence in society and the widespread acceptance of simulated violence as a form of entertainment. No doubt a legal restraint on the type of material available to the public in game form is only a small part of the answer, but I am loath to give it up.
"I am not alone in my view. Groups such as Young Media Australia oppose the introduction of an R18+ classification, saying that interactive violence can desensitise people to violence. Although I receive letters from the public opposing my stance on R18+ games, I also get letters of support. Some other classification ministers are also opposed to an R18+ classification but have not spoken about it publicly. I'm confident the proposal would be blocked by other classification ministers if I weren't using my veto power.
"The framework for our classification system is established in Commonwealth legislation. The process of classifying a work is done by the Office of Film and Literature Classification [sic*]--a federal government body. Films and games are classified according to the same guidelines and using the same categories and symbols under the classification codes. Games that are entertaining and challenging to adults may be found in any classification category. The classification goes simply to the strength or impact of the content. In classifying a game, only the classifiable elements are considered: violence, sex, nudity, drug use, coarse language, and (controversial) themes.
"In Australia there is merit in a national classification scheme. With state and territory borders being artificial for these purposes, once games classified R18+ are available in one state they will be readily available in others. It is important not to confuse the classification rating of a game with the game's sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player. Depending on tastes and interests, adult gamers will find much to enjoy in all of the categories of games now available.
"Classifications are overseen by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. SCAG includes attorneys general from all states, territories, and the Commonwealth. Most members are also the relevant minister for classifications in their jurisdiction. Under the Federal legislation, one minister can veto changes to our classification system in Australia. Hitherto, attorneys general have not agreed to create an R18+ category for computer games.
"A discussion paper will be released to the public shortly on the proposal for an R18+ classification for video games. I support the issuing of a public discussion paper that adequately represents both sides of the argument."
Original here.
South Australian attorney general says he is not the only classification minister to oppose R18+ classification; lauds current system's ability to "encourage modification."
For many Aussie gamers, Michael Atkinson is a deeply unpopular character. The South Australian attorney general has been a vocal critic of game violence, and he has blocked previous moves to introduce an R18+ classification for games down under. Without an R18+ classification, the highest game rating is MA 15+, which means that the Classification Board is forced to ban any game that doesn't meet that rating's standards. Australia's Standing Committee of Attorneys General (SCAG)--a board made up of all state, territory, and federal AGs--has the power to change this, but only if all members agree. Atkinson has been the most public voice of dissent among the group.
Last year, GameSpot AU contacted Atkinson to gauge his views on Australian game classification. We sent through a long list of questions (his office preferred a written interview) in an attempt to explore his side of the argument. Atkinson's written response (which we received only late last week) did not directly answer our questions, but instead outlined his overall rationale for opposing the introduction of an R18+ rating in Australia. And in a key revelation, Atkinson says that he is not the only classification minister to oppose the introduction of an R18+ rating. A spokesperson for Atkinson said that the minister has been asked by a number of other classification ministers, whom he refuses to name, to be the spokesperson in this matter. GameSpot AU has contacted all state, territory, and federal attorneys general to get their individual positions, but had not received full clarification as of time of publication.
GameSpot AU will also continue to chase Mr. Atkinson for further clarification of his position, but in the meantime, his response to our original list of questions can be read below.
South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson:
"I don't support the introduction of an R18+ rating for electronic games, chiefly because it will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages.
"The interactive nature of electronic games means that they have a much greater influence than viewing a movie does. People are participating and 'acting-out' violence and criminal behaviour when they are playing a video game. They are essentially rehearsing harmful behaviour. Children and vulnerable adults (such as those with a mental illness) can be harmed by playing video games with violence, sex, and criminal activity.
"The South Australian government takes a strong position on protecting children (and the public) from criminal behaviour, sexual abuse, and drug use. My stance on R18+ classification is in line with the policies of the Rann Government [current South Australian government] to protect children.
"Retaining the present classification scheme for electronic games is necessary because: it keeps the most extreme material off the shelves; it prevents children and vulnerable adults from being exposed to sexual abuse, criminal activity, and extreme violence in video games; it prevents children and vulnerable adults from virtual participation in sex, criminal activity, and extreme violence; and it results in game developers modifying their product for Australian and sometimes international audiences.
"I have three sons who regularly play computer games at home--the eldest is now 22. I see my children become physically and emotionally obsessed with games, and it is difficult to drag them away from the gaming console. The repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises children to violence. It makes violence part of their everyday lives and what is especially concerning is that it is their re-creation. A child being able to watch sex and violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child participating in sex and violence in a computer game is worse.
"Extreme violence, perverted sex, and criminal activity are not essential for adults to enjoy playing electronic games. There are plenty of sophisticated games that are of interest to adults. A game is not necessarily more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material, criminal activity, or offensive language. Some of the most popular and highly recommended games for adults would not be R18+ rated.
"Critics sometimes claim that I am ruining the game-development industry. There are very few computer games that are refused classification each year. In 2007/8 just three computer games were refused classification (Soldier of Fortune: Payback, Dark Sector, and Shellshock 2: Blood Trails). This represents a very small proportion of the 961 decisions made last financial year. In fact, only 55 were classified at the top existing rating of MA15+.
"Last year the makers of Grand Theft Auto IV altered the game before submitting it for an MA15+ classification, and Silent Hill: Homecoming is under revision by its makers after being knocked back by the Classification Board. The lack of an R18+ classification is not preventing very many adult-themed video games reaching the shop shelves--but it is ensuring that scenes that don't comply with a MA15+ rating are removed. I think that's a great result for consumers and has little impact on the profitability of game developers.
"Some games, such as Grand Theft Auto IV, have been modified to meet Australian standards. The present system encourages game developers to consider what is appropriate for an MA15+ rating and adjust their product accordingly. Sometimes this modified version has become the internationally distributed version.
"Some of your readers may believe that the present system restricts adult liberty. It certainly does restrict choice to a small degree, but that is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, the small sacrifice is worth it. Classification exists for advertising, films, and books for the same reason--to protect children and vulnerable people.
"In cinemas, the age of moviegoers can be regulated, and at the video store people must provide ID to hire R18+ videos. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the games are easily accessible to children. These days, older children (18-30) are often living in the family home with younger children (under 18). This means games belonging to older children or parents can easily make their way into the hands of those under 18.
"I'm concerned about the level of violence in society and the widespread acceptance of simulated violence as a form of entertainment. No doubt a legal restraint on the type of material available to the public in game form is only a small part of the answer, but I am loath to give it up.
"I am not alone in my view. Groups such as Young Media Australia oppose the introduction of an R18+ classification, saying that interactive violence can desensitise people to violence. Although I receive letters from the public opposing my stance on R18+ games, I also get letters of support. Some other classification ministers are also opposed to an R18+ classification but have not spoken about it publicly. I'm confident the proposal would be blocked by other classification ministers if I weren't using my veto power.
"The framework for our classification system is established in Commonwealth legislation. The process of classifying a work is done by the Office of Film and Literature Classification [sic*]--a federal government body. Films and games are classified according to the same guidelines and using the same categories and symbols under the classification codes. Games that are entertaining and challenging to adults may be found in any classification category. The classification goes simply to the strength or impact of the content. In classifying a game, only the classifiable elements are considered: violence, sex, nudity, drug use, coarse language, and (controversial) themes.
"In Australia there is merit in a national classification scheme. With state and territory borders being artificial for these purposes, once games classified R18+ are available in one state they will be readily available in others. It is important not to confuse the classification rating of a game with the game's sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player. Depending on tastes and interests, adult gamers will find much to enjoy in all of the categories of games now available.
"Classifications are overseen by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. SCAG includes attorneys general from all states, territories, and the Commonwealth. Most members are also the relevant minister for classifications in their jurisdiction. Under the Federal legislation, one minister can veto changes to our classification system in Australia. Hitherto, attorneys general have not agreed to create an R18+ category for computer games.
"A discussion paper will be released to the public shortly on the proposal for an R18+ classification for video games. I support the issuing of a public discussion paper that adequately represents both sides of the argument."
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Atheist message not heard down under
As you may have read, last week Londoners were treated to a different kind of bus advertisement. The British Humanist Association, with the aid of good old Richard Dawkins, launched their atheist bus ad campaign throughout the UK. Unfortunately for Aussies, a similar attempt by the Atheist Foundation of Australia was rejected by the ad agency that takes care of all the outdoor advertising around the country.
Story in SMH here.
BRITISH atheists have been celebrating the appearance of flippant slogans on London buses this week but atheists in Australia have been barred from launching a similar advertising campaign on the nation's public transport systems.
The Atheist Foundation of Australia was knocked back by Australia's biggest outdoor advertising company, APN Outdoor, on its proposal for a nationwide campaign featuring atheist slogans.
The campaign - with slogans such as "Sleep in on Sunday mornings" and "Celebrate reason" - follows successful attempts by the British and American Humanist Associations to raise awareness for atheism in London and Washington.
APN Outdoor cited no reason for rejecting the $16,000 public transport campaign, and declined to comment.
"The intention was to demonstrate to the public that there is an alternative to religion that is rational, reasonable and worthy of thought," said the president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, David Nicholls.
"It took three weeks for APN Outdoor to come to a decision, after they initially told me there'd be no problem. The final discussion by phone to an executive ended with an abrupt message that they were not going to take our business."
APN Outdoor refused to comment on whether the company's clients include religious organisations, but Mr Nicholls said buses in Adelaide had been adorned with religious messages such as "John 3:16". He also approached bus advertisers in Hobart, with the same result.
"Australia is in desperate need of a human rights and equal opportunities act," Mr Nicholls said. "It's clear that western Europe, the US and Britain have better laws than we do when it comes to … respecting freedom of speech."
Associate Professor Carole Cusack, of the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, said most Australians were too apathetic about religion to be affected negatively by the campaign. "If religions can buy advertising space, then why not atheists?"
Friar Peter McGrath, of St Francis of Assisi Catholic parish in Paddington, agreed.
"The [atheists] should have a right to advertise. They should be able to say what they want."
The atheists are taking their case to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Board.
Story in SMH here.
BRITISH atheists have been celebrating the appearance of flippant slogans on London buses this week but atheists in Australia have been barred from launching a similar advertising campaign on the nation's public transport systems.
The Atheist Foundation of Australia was knocked back by Australia's biggest outdoor advertising company, APN Outdoor, on its proposal for a nationwide campaign featuring atheist slogans.
The campaign - with slogans such as "Sleep in on Sunday mornings" and "Celebrate reason" - follows successful attempts by the British and American Humanist Associations to raise awareness for atheism in London and Washington.
APN Outdoor cited no reason for rejecting the $16,000 public transport campaign, and declined to comment.
"The intention was to demonstrate to the public that there is an alternative to religion that is rational, reasonable and worthy of thought," said the president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, David Nicholls.
"It took three weeks for APN Outdoor to come to a decision, after they initially told me there'd be no problem. The final discussion by phone to an executive ended with an abrupt message that they were not going to take our business."
APN Outdoor refused to comment on whether the company's clients include religious organisations, but Mr Nicholls said buses in Adelaide had been adorned with religious messages such as "John 3:16". He also approached bus advertisers in Hobart, with the same result.
"Australia is in desperate need of a human rights and equal opportunities act," Mr Nicholls said. "It's clear that western Europe, the US and Britain have better laws than we do when it comes to … respecting freedom of speech."
Associate Professor Carole Cusack, of the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, said most Australians were too apathetic about religion to be affected negatively by the campaign. "If religions can buy advertising space, then why not atheists?"
Friar Peter McGrath, of St Francis of Assisi Catholic parish in Paddington, agreed.
"The [atheists] should have a right to advertise. They should be able to say what they want."
The atheists are taking their case to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Board.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Are video games art?
The most debated topic in gaming, and one of my better-received GameSpot AU investigations. Check out some of the comments! Gamers don't mess about.
Original here.
In 1917 French artist Marcel Duchamp exhibited a urinal and called it art. Eighty-seven years later it was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 art world professionals.
Art is notoriously tough to define. The moment a reasonable description of art is agreed upon, something comes along that demands it be re-evaluated. The latest culprit to upset the balance is video games. The debate of whether or not video games are an art form began as a discussion among academics a little less than a decade ago, and has since gained momentum in the video games community and, to some extent, the mass media.
One side argues that video games are increasingly valuable cultural artefacts that employ new technologies and a range of creative processes to produce an effective, and artistic, entertainment medium. The other side argues that the interactivity of video games renders them unfit to be classified as art. But this feature doesn’t aim to draw conclusions--it aims to give voice to those who have not yet had their say. Do video game developers see themselves as artists? Do they want the games they make to be labelled as art? Do they care?
All art takes into account the intentions of its creator. With that in mind, GS AU has caught up with some of this year’s most innovative game developers including Jonathan Blow (Braid), Media Molecule (Little Big Planet) and Blue Tongue (de Blob) to find out what, if any, artistic motivations were at the heart of their creative visions.
Defining the Indefinable
In November 2005, US film critic Roger Ebert claimed that video games will never be as artistically worthy as movies or literature. He wrote:
”I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship 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. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilised and empathetic.”
It would not be wrong to say that Ebert’s perspective on video games mirrors the majority of the non-gamer public. But what if things were the other way around? In his book titled Everything Bad is Good for You, US author Stephen Johnson defends video games against the widely held preconception that they, along with other forms of popular entertainment, are detrimental to cognitive and moral development. To do this, Johnson envisions a world where video games are the standard and books have newly been invented. He imagines that critic responses to this new medium may be something like this:
“Unlike the longstanding tradition of game playing, which engages the child in a vivid, three-dimensional world filled with moving images and musical soundscapes, navigated and controlled with complex muscular movements, books are simply a barren string of words on the page. Reading books chronically under-stimulates the senses. You can’t control their narratives in any fashion; you simply sit back and have the story dictated to you.”
Video games have a long ladder to climb before Johnson’s imagined reality can become our own, but acknowledging games as an art form is a step in the right direction. While defining art relies to some extent on subjectivity, there are certain characteristics that appear to be staples in any definition of the visual arts: great technical ability, self expression, a level of visual harmony and/or beauty, an insight into reality and the potential to make the viewer question the way he or she looks at the world. Interactivity, you’ll notice, is not on the list. This, in a nutshell, is the case against video games as an art form. Traditional forms of art engage the viewer in a static way; video games engage the viewer through participation.
Helen Stuckey, games lab curator at the Australian Centre for Moving Image in Melbourne, has been working with video games for eight years. She says art cannot happen without interactivity. “Interactivity is a very challenging experience for earlier definitions of what art is,” she said. “I’m trained to tell people what’s art and video games are art--they are a beautiful blend of art and technology that take years to develop and are full of craftsmanship of an extraordinary kind.”
The question of whether video games should or shouldn’t strive for artistic value is important. Certainly, with games like Okami, Shadow of the Colossus or BioShock it’s easy to imagine art playing a central role in the original aims of the game. But should all developers keep this in mind? “I think they should,” Stuckey said. “You certainly see games where you really feel that art has been part of the ambition, and in some ways they’re much closer to the traditional definition of art, both in the fact that they’re storytelling games and that they’re beautiful.”
At the same time, Stuckey warns that video games are creating their own rules about what is artistically valuable; an art form in their own right, and by their own standards.
“Games create their own kind of aesthetic, so we don’t want to be comparing them to other art forms to find out what makes them art. We have to look within games. Most art forms have a relationship between the creator and the audience--audiences now come with their own concepts and ways of reading that enriches the artwork. That’s a very active relationship when you’re dealing with video games, because you have to be literally playing the video game to appreciate it.”
In early 2006, US author and self-confessed gamer Nic Kelman wrote Video Game Art, a book whose aim is to convince readers that video games are the dominant art form of the new millennium. Like Stuckey, Kelman argues that video games have created new standards for artistic merit.
“A game like Shadow of the Colossus might be considered valuable for its beauty, music, or as a whole,” Kelman said. “A game like Madden NFL 08 might be considered artistically valuable for its ability to portray reality as accurately and deeply as possible. The emotional impact of video games is just as deep and strong as a movie or a book or a piece of music. The people who do not agree are most often those who have never played a video game. “
Historically, art has been discussed in such a way that supports the notion that an artwork is created by a single mind. Despite collaborative projects such as film, art has continued to be framed this way. In countries like Japan, where manga and anime are celebrated as mainstream art forms, there is a much stronger sense of video games as an art form made by collaborative voices. But the West is still to catch up.
“It’s a shame that people don’t have an understanding of the faces behind games, and that games are made by creative people,” Stuckey said. “Your average punter can tell you the roles that go into the making of a film, but even your most passionate gamer can often struggle with defining the roles that go into making a game.”
According to Stuckey, gamers care passionately about having a more complex dialogue around how video games impact on their lives, what they make them think about, and how they resonate with broader philosophical ideas. “I’d like to see a lot more knowledge in the general public about who actually makes games. We don’t really discuss creators and I think that would be good for games. People have to start associating them with creative people rather than companies.”
However, not all academics share Stuckey’s opinion that video games should strive to be artistic. Miguel Sicart, assistant professor in game design at the Center for Computer Game Research at the IT University of Copenhagen, argues that game developers have no obligation to produce artistic products. “The mandate of mainstream developers is to make games that are fun and that sell,” Sicart said. “This doesn’t mean that they have to renounce making good games, but art challenges its spectators and users, and blockbuster games cannot afford to do that. Games should be fun and engaging. Art requires more than that. There is a clear trend towards making artistic games, but this is coming from indie developers.”
Sicart’s own take on the debate is that in order to understand video games as art, society must place them in relation to, not separate from, previous forms of artistic expression. “In a game like Braid, the mechanics are the message. To play this game is to understand the relation between the actions afforded to players and the vague narrative that frames them. In this sense, Braid is close to be a conceptual art piece, and hence a work of art.”
Diamond in the Rough
One of the most innovative games of the year was the Xbox Live Arcade puzzle platformer Braid. Its creator, Jonathan Blow, used the game as a reflection of his own personal experience, thoughts and ideas of the world. If art is partly about self expression, then Braid is a definite contender.
“I definitely produced Braid as an art object. Nothing in the game is random; everything is put there because I wanted it to be there,” Blow said. “It’s not all autobiographical, just a metaphorical version of things that happened in my life, things I’ve thought about, or things I’ve done. There were things that I wanted to try and things I wanted to show people, and video games are a natural way to do that.”
It took Blow three and a half years to make Braid into a game that has simplicity and elegance at its core. After its Xbox Live Arcade release, it was purchased by more than 55,000 people during the first week and was critically acclaimed by the review community (GameSpot gave the game a score of 9.5, the highest score given to a downloadable game in the site’s history). Reviewers praised Braid for its innovative use of the time reversal as a platformer, its art style, music score and story. But the most obvious thing about Braid is its distinction from other video games.
“It exists for a different reason than what most games do, and people pick up on that,” Blow said. “It isn’t a game that caters to a certain demographic, and it’s not a game that’s trying to do the same thing as another game. People appreciate where Braid is coming from, and what it’s trying to do.”
As somebody who makes games and intends them to be art, Blow thinks the debate surrounding video games as art is not a useful one.
“I know what I’m doing, so why do I need to argue about it? It doesn’t change what I’m doing. It just doesn’t make sense for someone to come along and tell me that what I’m doing is not art.
“The problem that I have with the ostensible argument of whether games can be art is that people very seldom approach things at that level of thought. It’s not just a level of discussion that seems very productive or helpful.”
According to Blow, games like Braid that differ from the mainstream can help change public opinion on the artistic value and worth of video games. But if video games are to ever become more than just mere entertainment, they will need to master a new formula that is innovative and successful. New York Times writer Daniel Radosh argues that the games that come closest to achieving artistry tend to be non-narrative: abstractions of light and sound and puzzle adventures that subvert a gamers’ sense of space, time and physics. Radosh argues that while a game like Halo 3 is flawless, it does not succeed as a work of art because it does not even try.
“Like cinema, games will need to embrace the dynamics of failure, tragedy, comedy and romance,” Radosh argues. “They will need to stop pandering to the player’s desire for mastery in favour of enhancing the player’s emotional and intellectual life. Gamers have a right to expect more than what the medium now has to offer.”
Blow is trying to achieve just that. But he’s not certain the revolutionary change he’s hoping for will come anytime soon. “In order for people to appreciate video games we, the developers, have to stop creating 99.9 per cent juvenile crap,” he said. “I don’t know if that’s going to happen.
“I would really appreciate if the game development community explored the potential of the medium and make stronger and more compelling games outside what we’re doing right now. No one save teenage boys and a few exceptions wants to run around killing monsters as Kratos from God of War. Very few people are interested in that on a societal level. We, as developers, have found an audience that is very interested in that and we keep playing to that audience, because it’s very risky not to.”
“There are very few games right now that are really aimed at changing a person’s life. I think I’ve made some attempt at that direction with Braid. It’s a game that is trying to speak to people, to make them see the world in a new way. I hope we can keep on creating games like that.”
Play and Learn
Roger Ebert’s comments in 2005 sparked the first real public debate on whether video games can or cannot be classified as art. The main arguments against video games which sprung from what followed centred on the belief that video games are unable to communicate meaning in the same way that films or books. While the majority of video games are not built in this fashion, more and more video game developers agree that video games have the potential to communicate ideas about life and the world to players.
According to Kellee Santiago, president and co-founder of thatgamecompany--the studio behind flOw and the upcoming title, Flower--video games have already begun to tap the communicative possibilities of interactive media.
“I want to see more critiques of games that focus on how games make the player feel,” Santiago said. “Games are a medium through which we communicate, and therefore they are art. Those of us who played games through our most formative years know that games absolutely do communicate ideas and can impact an audience.”
Santiago founded thatgamecompany in 2006 with business partner Jenova Chen after meeting at the University of Southern California. Combining their shared passion for video games with a will to push the communicative boundaries of the medium, Santiago and Chen began working on titles for digital distribution. “The timing seemed perfect for us to go ahead and create games that offer different emotional content and push the idea of what can be communicated in a video game,” Santiago said.
And that’s exactly what they did. After striking a three-game deal with Sony for the PlayStation Network, thatgamecompany’s first commercial title, flOw, was released in February 2007, and quickly became the top selling PSN title. The company’s next game, Flower, aims to be the video game equivalent of a poem. Rather than telling a sophisticated story, Santiago and Chen want players to have their own interpretations of the game.
“Flower's creation is very much inspired by my personal journey through the US,” Chen said. “Having grown up in metropolitan China, I was shocked by the endless green grass fields and the windmill farms I saw while travelling between big cities. I mixed what I saw in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and my hometown Shanghai together with the wild dream of nature.”
For Chen and Santiago, learning to treat video games as an art form came naturally. When working on a game, the pair abandons any considerations for the kind of game they as developers want to make, and focus on what the game could communicate to players. This approach to game making is one that Chen and Santiago see splitting the game development community.
“On one hand it appears we [the game development community] are crying out that games should be recognised as art,” Santiago said. “On the other hand, it also appears we're saying that content in games doesn't influence player behaviours. I see a contradiction in wanting to be taken seriously as an art form, but then waving any responsibility in the kind of content we produce. “Only when a gamer accepts a video game as a work of art will they become aware of the ideas it is communicating. We hope Flower inspired some thoughtful contemplation in the player, and we hope it inspires ideas that players will be able to discuss with others.”
A New Approach
Despite academics like Miguel Sicart indicating that mainstream developers and publishers will continue to deliver successful prototypes of video games without moving beyond the conventional boundaries of the medium, some mainstream developers have already begun to push the envelope.
In September this year, Australian studio Blue Tongue and publisher THQ released the colourful puzzle game de Blob. Lauded by video game critics worldwide for its originality and entertaining gameplay, de Blob invites players to use their creativity in restoring a city back to life by re-animating it with colour. Creative director of Blue Tongue, Nick Hagger, says de Blob invites reflection and interpretation.
“If we accept that as one of the definitions of art, then de Blob should be considered art,” Hagger said. “Games are still a somewhat nascent art form, their widespread acceptance as art is reliant upon generational and cultural change, as well as the development of a shared critical dialogue, which allows people to engage equally in discussion of games.
“As games become more a part of mainstream culture, I think the debate will be less relevant.”
Like Jonathan Blow, Kellee Santiago and Jenova Chen, Hagger used video games to reflect his own values and ideas of the world; de Blob reflects a lot of Hagger’s feelings about growing up in the inner city.
“I think any medium that makes you think about what you’re doing outside it and invites wider questions about your world is artistically valuable. This debate is something that is less about the perceived artistic merit of the medium, but more to do with the insecurity of gamers wanting to accelerate the mainstream legitimisation of games; it doesn’t engage anyone beyond those people who are active participants or consumers of gaming culture. I think the majority of people making games would have no trouble asserting that what they create is art; developers join the games industry because they have a passion for creative expression, regardless of their specific discipline.”
This is certainly true of Media Molecule, the developer behind Sony’s Little Big Planet. Like de Blob, Little Big Planet uses creativity to encourage self expression; Media Molecule’s vision for the game centred on fusing art with gameplay and design.
“Right from the start, art was integral to the creation of Little Big Planet,” said Media Molecule’s executive producer, Siobhan Reddy. “We wanted the game to be about expression. Our art director is actually an artist and he brought to the table that traditional aspect of art that you see in the game.”
While Reddy believes that video games as a medium are artistic, the current video game development industry is far too broad to demand artistic value from all video games.
“There are definitely games out there that are wonderful examples of a synergy of art, design, gameplay and sound, all of which take the player on a journey. Of course, not all video games can be, or need to be, like this. It’s just great that there are some developers out there who are using the medium to produce art. Artists don’t have to be painters or sculptors--I consider my programmers at Media Molecule artists because I’ve seen what they can do.”
Through Little Big Planet’s creative tools and gameplay, Reddy and her team hope to attract non-traditional gamers to gaming.
“I can play it with my nephews who are eight and six; I can play it with my brother who is a photographer and artist; I can play it with my sister and her fiancé; and I can even sit down and play it with my mum and my dad. And for a game to be that diverse is really rare.”
Earlier this year, Media Molecule and Sony teamed up with design schools in New York and Sydney to promote Little Big Planet and give design students the opportunity to create their own levels. The partnerships were a success and, according to Reddy, helped to promote the studio and the work they had created. This, she says, is something more development studios need to do.
“We as developers all feel comfortable seeing and using technology as a way to fuse all the different aspects of art and creativity together. But I would love to see teams get more exposure. It comes down to studios backing their teams, and giving them the opportunity to express themselves. The industry should promote its own talent, but that could quite easily start with studios promoting their own talent first.”
Original here.
In 1917 French artist Marcel Duchamp exhibited a urinal and called it art. Eighty-seven years later it was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 art world professionals.
Art is notoriously tough to define. The moment a reasonable description of art is agreed upon, something comes along that demands it be re-evaluated. The latest culprit to upset the balance is video games. The debate of whether or not video games are an art form began as a discussion among academics a little less than a decade ago, and has since gained momentum in the video games community and, to some extent, the mass media.
One side argues that video games are increasingly valuable cultural artefacts that employ new technologies and a range of creative processes to produce an effective, and artistic, entertainment medium. The other side argues that the interactivity of video games renders them unfit to be classified as art. But this feature doesn’t aim to draw conclusions--it aims to give voice to those who have not yet had their say. Do video game developers see themselves as artists? Do they want the games they make to be labelled as art? Do they care?
All art takes into account the intentions of its creator. With that in mind, GS AU has caught up with some of this year’s most innovative game developers including Jonathan Blow (Braid), Media Molecule (Little Big Planet) and Blue Tongue (de Blob) to find out what, if any, artistic motivations were at the heart of their creative visions.
Defining the Indefinable
In November 2005, US film critic Roger Ebert claimed that video games will never be as artistically worthy as movies or literature. He wrote:
”I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship 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. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilised and empathetic.”
It would not be wrong to say that Ebert’s perspective on video games mirrors the majority of the non-gamer public. But what if things were the other way around? In his book titled Everything Bad is Good for You, US author Stephen Johnson defends video games against the widely held preconception that they, along with other forms of popular entertainment, are detrimental to cognitive and moral development. To do this, Johnson envisions a world where video games are the standard and books have newly been invented. He imagines that critic responses to this new medium may be something like this:
“Unlike the longstanding tradition of game playing, which engages the child in a vivid, three-dimensional world filled with moving images and musical soundscapes, navigated and controlled with complex muscular movements, books are simply a barren string of words on the page. Reading books chronically under-stimulates the senses. You can’t control their narratives in any fashion; you simply sit back and have the story dictated to you.”
Video games have a long ladder to climb before Johnson’s imagined reality can become our own, but acknowledging games as an art form is a step in the right direction. While defining art relies to some extent on subjectivity, there are certain characteristics that appear to be staples in any definition of the visual arts: great technical ability, self expression, a level of visual harmony and/or beauty, an insight into reality and the potential to make the viewer question the way he or she looks at the world. Interactivity, you’ll notice, is not on the list. This, in a nutshell, is the case against video games as an art form. Traditional forms of art engage the viewer in a static way; video games engage the viewer through participation.
Helen Stuckey, games lab curator at the Australian Centre for Moving Image in Melbourne, has been working with video games for eight years. She says art cannot happen without interactivity. “Interactivity is a very challenging experience for earlier definitions of what art is,” she said. “I’m trained to tell people what’s art and video games are art--they are a beautiful blend of art and technology that take years to develop and are full of craftsmanship of an extraordinary kind.”
The question of whether video games should or shouldn’t strive for artistic value is important. Certainly, with games like Okami, Shadow of the Colossus or BioShock it’s easy to imagine art playing a central role in the original aims of the game. But should all developers keep this in mind? “I think they should,” Stuckey said. “You certainly see games where you really feel that art has been part of the ambition, and in some ways they’re much closer to the traditional definition of art, both in the fact that they’re storytelling games and that they’re beautiful.”
At the same time, Stuckey warns that video games are creating their own rules about what is artistically valuable; an art form in their own right, and by their own standards.
“Games create their own kind of aesthetic, so we don’t want to be comparing them to other art forms to find out what makes them art. We have to look within games. Most art forms have a relationship between the creator and the audience--audiences now come with their own concepts and ways of reading that enriches the artwork. That’s a very active relationship when you’re dealing with video games, because you have to be literally playing the video game to appreciate it.”
In early 2006, US author and self-confessed gamer Nic Kelman wrote Video Game Art, a book whose aim is to convince readers that video games are the dominant art form of the new millennium. Like Stuckey, Kelman argues that video games have created new standards for artistic merit.
“A game like Shadow of the Colossus might be considered valuable for its beauty, music, or as a whole,” Kelman said. “A game like Madden NFL 08 might be considered artistically valuable for its ability to portray reality as accurately and deeply as possible. The emotional impact of video games is just as deep and strong as a movie or a book or a piece of music. The people who do not agree are most often those who have never played a video game. “
Historically, art has been discussed in such a way that supports the notion that an artwork is created by a single mind. Despite collaborative projects such as film, art has continued to be framed this way. In countries like Japan, where manga and anime are celebrated as mainstream art forms, there is a much stronger sense of video games as an art form made by collaborative voices. But the West is still to catch up.
“It’s a shame that people don’t have an understanding of the faces behind games, and that games are made by creative people,” Stuckey said. “Your average punter can tell you the roles that go into the making of a film, but even your most passionate gamer can often struggle with defining the roles that go into making a game.”
According to Stuckey, gamers care passionately about having a more complex dialogue around how video games impact on their lives, what they make them think about, and how they resonate with broader philosophical ideas. “I’d like to see a lot more knowledge in the general public about who actually makes games. We don’t really discuss creators and I think that would be good for games. People have to start associating them with creative people rather than companies.”
However, not all academics share Stuckey’s opinion that video games should strive to be artistic. Miguel Sicart, assistant professor in game design at the Center for Computer Game Research at the IT University of Copenhagen, argues that game developers have no obligation to produce artistic products. “The mandate of mainstream developers is to make games that are fun and that sell,” Sicart said. “This doesn’t mean that they have to renounce making good games, but art challenges its spectators and users, and blockbuster games cannot afford to do that. Games should be fun and engaging. Art requires more than that. There is a clear trend towards making artistic games, but this is coming from indie developers.”
Sicart’s own take on the debate is that in order to understand video games as art, society must place them in relation to, not separate from, previous forms of artistic expression. “In a game like Braid, the mechanics are the message. To play this game is to understand the relation between the actions afforded to players and the vague narrative that frames them. In this sense, Braid is close to be a conceptual art piece, and hence a work of art.”
Diamond in the Rough
One of the most innovative games of the year was the Xbox Live Arcade puzzle platformer Braid. Its creator, Jonathan Blow, used the game as a reflection of his own personal experience, thoughts and ideas of the world. If art is partly about self expression, then Braid is a definite contender.
“I definitely produced Braid as an art object. Nothing in the game is random; everything is put there because I wanted it to be there,” Blow said. “It’s not all autobiographical, just a metaphorical version of things that happened in my life, things I’ve thought about, or things I’ve done. There were things that I wanted to try and things I wanted to show people, and video games are a natural way to do that.”
It took Blow three and a half years to make Braid into a game that has simplicity and elegance at its core. After its Xbox Live Arcade release, it was purchased by more than 55,000 people during the first week and was critically acclaimed by the review community (GameSpot gave the game a score of 9.5, the highest score given to a downloadable game in the site’s history). Reviewers praised Braid for its innovative use of the time reversal as a platformer, its art style, music score and story. But the most obvious thing about Braid is its distinction from other video games.
“It exists for a different reason than what most games do, and people pick up on that,” Blow said. “It isn’t a game that caters to a certain demographic, and it’s not a game that’s trying to do the same thing as another game. People appreciate where Braid is coming from, and what it’s trying to do.”
As somebody who makes games and intends them to be art, Blow thinks the debate surrounding video games as art is not a useful one.
“I know what I’m doing, so why do I need to argue about it? It doesn’t change what I’m doing. It just doesn’t make sense for someone to come along and tell me that what I’m doing is not art.
“The problem that I have with the ostensible argument of whether games can be art is that people very seldom approach things at that level of thought. It’s not just a level of discussion that seems very productive or helpful.”
According to Blow, games like Braid that differ from the mainstream can help change public opinion on the artistic value and worth of video games. But if video games are to ever become more than just mere entertainment, they will need to master a new formula that is innovative and successful. New York Times writer Daniel Radosh argues that the games that come closest to achieving artistry tend to be non-narrative: abstractions of light and sound and puzzle adventures that subvert a gamers’ sense of space, time and physics. Radosh argues that while a game like Halo 3 is flawless, it does not succeed as a work of art because it does not even try.
“Like cinema, games will need to embrace the dynamics of failure, tragedy, comedy and romance,” Radosh argues. “They will need to stop pandering to the player’s desire for mastery in favour of enhancing the player’s emotional and intellectual life. Gamers have a right to expect more than what the medium now has to offer.”
Blow is trying to achieve just that. But he’s not certain the revolutionary change he’s hoping for will come anytime soon. “In order for people to appreciate video games we, the developers, have to stop creating 99.9 per cent juvenile crap,” he said. “I don’t know if that’s going to happen.
“I would really appreciate if the game development community explored the potential of the medium and make stronger and more compelling games outside what we’re doing right now. No one save teenage boys and a few exceptions wants to run around killing monsters as Kratos from God of War. Very few people are interested in that on a societal level. We, as developers, have found an audience that is very interested in that and we keep playing to that audience, because it’s very risky not to.”
“There are very few games right now that are really aimed at changing a person’s life. I think I’ve made some attempt at that direction with Braid. It’s a game that is trying to speak to people, to make them see the world in a new way. I hope we can keep on creating games like that.”
Play and Learn
Roger Ebert’s comments in 2005 sparked the first real public debate on whether video games can or cannot be classified as art. The main arguments against video games which sprung from what followed centred on the belief that video games are unable to communicate meaning in the same way that films or books. While the majority of video games are not built in this fashion, more and more video game developers agree that video games have the potential to communicate ideas about life and the world to players.
According to Kellee Santiago, president and co-founder of thatgamecompany--the studio behind flOw and the upcoming title, Flower--video games have already begun to tap the communicative possibilities of interactive media.
“I want to see more critiques of games that focus on how games make the player feel,” Santiago said. “Games are a medium through which we communicate, and therefore they are art. Those of us who played games through our most formative years know that games absolutely do communicate ideas and can impact an audience.”
Santiago founded thatgamecompany in 2006 with business partner Jenova Chen after meeting at the University of Southern California. Combining their shared passion for video games with a will to push the communicative boundaries of the medium, Santiago and Chen began working on titles for digital distribution. “The timing seemed perfect for us to go ahead and create games that offer different emotional content and push the idea of what can be communicated in a video game,” Santiago said.
And that’s exactly what they did. After striking a three-game deal with Sony for the PlayStation Network, thatgamecompany’s first commercial title, flOw, was released in February 2007, and quickly became the top selling PSN title. The company’s next game, Flower, aims to be the video game equivalent of a poem. Rather than telling a sophisticated story, Santiago and Chen want players to have their own interpretations of the game.
“Flower's creation is very much inspired by my personal journey through the US,” Chen said. “Having grown up in metropolitan China, I was shocked by the endless green grass fields and the windmill farms I saw while travelling between big cities. I mixed what I saw in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and my hometown Shanghai together with the wild dream of nature.”
For Chen and Santiago, learning to treat video games as an art form came naturally. When working on a game, the pair abandons any considerations for the kind of game they as developers want to make, and focus on what the game could communicate to players. This approach to game making is one that Chen and Santiago see splitting the game development community.
“On one hand it appears we [the game development community] are crying out that games should be recognised as art,” Santiago said. “On the other hand, it also appears we're saying that content in games doesn't influence player behaviours. I see a contradiction in wanting to be taken seriously as an art form, but then waving any responsibility in the kind of content we produce. “Only when a gamer accepts a video game as a work of art will they become aware of the ideas it is communicating. We hope Flower inspired some thoughtful contemplation in the player, and we hope it inspires ideas that players will be able to discuss with others.”
A New Approach
Despite academics like Miguel Sicart indicating that mainstream developers and publishers will continue to deliver successful prototypes of video games without moving beyond the conventional boundaries of the medium, some mainstream developers have already begun to push the envelope.
In September this year, Australian studio Blue Tongue and publisher THQ released the colourful puzzle game de Blob. Lauded by video game critics worldwide for its originality and entertaining gameplay, de Blob invites players to use their creativity in restoring a city back to life by re-animating it with colour. Creative director of Blue Tongue, Nick Hagger, says de Blob invites reflection and interpretation.
“If we accept that as one of the definitions of art, then de Blob should be considered art,” Hagger said. “Games are still a somewhat nascent art form, their widespread acceptance as art is reliant upon generational and cultural change, as well as the development of a shared critical dialogue, which allows people to engage equally in discussion of games.
“As games become more a part of mainstream culture, I think the debate will be less relevant.”
Like Jonathan Blow, Kellee Santiago and Jenova Chen, Hagger used video games to reflect his own values and ideas of the world; de Blob reflects a lot of Hagger’s feelings about growing up in the inner city.
“I think any medium that makes you think about what you’re doing outside it and invites wider questions about your world is artistically valuable. This debate is something that is less about the perceived artistic merit of the medium, but more to do with the insecurity of gamers wanting to accelerate the mainstream legitimisation of games; it doesn’t engage anyone beyond those people who are active participants or consumers of gaming culture. I think the majority of people making games would have no trouble asserting that what they create is art; developers join the games industry because they have a passion for creative expression, regardless of their specific discipline.”
This is certainly true of Media Molecule, the developer behind Sony’s Little Big Planet. Like de Blob, Little Big Planet uses creativity to encourage self expression; Media Molecule’s vision for the game centred on fusing art with gameplay and design.
“Right from the start, art was integral to the creation of Little Big Planet,” said Media Molecule’s executive producer, Siobhan Reddy. “We wanted the game to be about expression. Our art director is actually an artist and he brought to the table that traditional aspect of art that you see in the game.”
While Reddy believes that video games as a medium are artistic, the current video game development industry is far too broad to demand artistic value from all video games.
“There are definitely games out there that are wonderful examples of a synergy of art, design, gameplay and sound, all of which take the player on a journey. Of course, not all video games can be, or need to be, like this. It’s just great that there are some developers out there who are using the medium to produce art. Artists don’t have to be painters or sculptors--I consider my programmers at Media Molecule artists because I’ve seen what they can do.”
Through Little Big Planet’s creative tools and gameplay, Reddy and her team hope to attract non-traditional gamers to gaming.
“I can play it with my nephews who are eight and six; I can play it with my brother who is a photographer and artist; I can play it with my sister and her fiancé; and I can even sit down and play it with my mum and my dad. And for a game to be that diverse is really rare.”
Earlier this year, Media Molecule and Sony teamed up with design schools in New York and Sydney to promote Little Big Planet and give design students the opportunity to create their own levels. The partnerships were a success and, according to Reddy, helped to promote the studio and the work they had created. This, she says, is something more development studios need to do.
“We as developers all feel comfortable seeing and using technology as a way to fuse all the different aspects of art and creativity together. But I would love to see teams get more exposure. It comes down to studios backing their teams, and giving them the opportunity to express themselves. The industry should promote its own talent, but that could quite easily start with studios promoting their own talent first.”
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Star Wars exhibition at the Powerhouse Museum
An article about the new Star Wars exhibition at the Powerhouse Museum for the Sydney Morning Herald. Original here.
Somewhere in a laboratory a scientist is watching Star Wars and taking notes. It's not the popular story, engaging characters or entertaining action scenes that capture the scientist's attention - it's the speeders, robots and spacecraft. But what do these on-screen technologies have to do with science as we know it now?
The Powerhouse Museum has the answer. Its new exhibition, Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination, will use the Star Wars films to introduce visitors to real scientific concepts that are being developed today.
Developed by the Museum of Science, Boston, in collaboration with Star Wars creator George Lucas's company, Lucasfilm Ltd, the exhibition will explore the real science behind the fantasy technologies depicted in the films, comparing these with the latest research that could lead to real-life equivalents.
Kerrie Dougherty, the curator of space technology at the Powerhouse, says the exhibition also explores the role that imagination has played in inspiring real-life scientific work.
"People have always been inspired by science-fiction, and that creative spark leads to innovation," she says. "The aim of this exhibition will be to encourage people to think about the future of science and where these new technologies are headed."
The exhibition will draw on four technological themes from the Star Wars films: transport, robotics, medical developments and environmental adaptation. It will feature more than 20 examples of real-world technology to tie in with these themes, including video interviews with filmmakers, scientists and engineers, hands-on interactive displays, and props, models and costumes from all six films, including Luke Sky- walker's speeder from Episode IV, original models or robots R2D2 and C3PO.
Over two levels, the exhibition also allows visitors to experiment in two makeshift engineering labs, where they can build magnetic levitation devices and miniature droids, and spin around in a real hovercraft.
The point of all this will be to get people thinking about the real-life equivalent of the technologies they see at work, such as modern prosthetics, medical implants, adapting to new environments as global warming takes its toll and questions of ethics, such as whether robots should have rights.
"This exhibition is all about education, but it's not just for children," Dougherty says. "I recommend this to anyone, Star Wars fan or not. There is so much knowledge to take away about everything from robotics and technology to science in general. Star Wars is the perfect platform to teach about these things because people know about it even if they haven't seen any of the films. It's become embedded in popular culture."
Why has Star Wars remained so popular? Dougherty remembers the hype surrounding the first film as it premiered in Sydney in 1977.
"People were amazed. I think Star Wars has endured the test of time because it's such an endearing story. It keys into all the stories we use in our society: the good triumphing over evil, the hero's journey etc. It's got all the good stuff that we love. It's a very simple story in one sense but a powerful one."
The exhibition's original curator, Ed Rodley from the Museum of Science in Boston, says that despite its title the exhibition is not about Star Wars.
"It's about our world, and our future. So, why Star Wars then? One of the greatest challenges of thinking about the future lies in visualising things, particularly technologies that don't yet exist. To talk about our future, we needed a depiction of a tech- nologically advanced society that was familiar to a broad audience."
This is not the first Star Wars exhibition at the Powerhouse. In 2002, Star Wars: The Power Of Myth explored the archetypal themes and motifs from classical mythology in the films. One of the most successful Powerhouse exhibitions, it attracted more than 200,000 visitors in five months. The two exhibitions differ in aims but expectations are high that the new Star Wars exhibition will attract even more visitors.
Dawn Casey, the museum's director, says there will be a focus on the educational component of the exhibition.
The museum will run school seminars for students in their final years of high school, and host teacher forums to introduce the exhibition and offer professional development. "We're keen to reverse the shortage of children taking up science, and we see the exhibition as a launching pad to increase the involvement children have with the subject," Casey says. "With the last Star Wars exhibition we didn't get as many school groups coming through as we would have liked."
Casey has run forums with museum colleagues and academics to gauge the future of the Powerhouse Museum.
"We discovered that people think it's time for the museum to take on a stronger science and technology focus, and we're taking this on board with the new Star Wars exhibition.
"The story of Star Wars engages everyone, no matter what their age. People have grown up with the characters, and the imagination around it. It's lighthearted and it feeds the imagination."
Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination opens on December 4 at the Powerhouse Museum.
Somewhere in a laboratory a scientist is watching Star Wars and taking notes. It's not the popular story, engaging characters or entertaining action scenes that capture the scientist's attention - it's the speeders, robots and spacecraft. But what do these on-screen technologies have to do with science as we know it now?
The Powerhouse Museum has the answer. Its new exhibition, Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination, will use the Star Wars films to introduce visitors to real scientific concepts that are being developed today.
Developed by the Museum of Science, Boston, in collaboration with Star Wars creator George Lucas's company, Lucasfilm Ltd, the exhibition will explore the real science behind the fantasy technologies depicted in the films, comparing these with the latest research that could lead to real-life equivalents.
Kerrie Dougherty, the curator of space technology at the Powerhouse, says the exhibition also explores the role that imagination has played in inspiring real-life scientific work.
"People have always been inspired by science-fiction, and that creative spark leads to innovation," she says. "The aim of this exhibition will be to encourage people to think about the future of science and where these new technologies are headed."
The exhibition will draw on four technological themes from the Star Wars films: transport, robotics, medical developments and environmental adaptation. It will feature more than 20 examples of real-world technology to tie in with these themes, including video interviews with filmmakers, scientists and engineers, hands-on interactive displays, and props, models and costumes from all six films, including Luke Sky- walker's speeder from Episode IV, original models or robots R2D2 and C3PO.
Over two levels, the exhibition also allows visitors to experiment in two makeshift engineering labs, where they can build magnetic levitation devices and miniature droids, and spin around in a real hovercraft.
The point of all this will be to get people thinking about the real-life equivalent of the technologies they see at work, such as modern prosthetics, medical implants, adapting to new environments as global warming takes its toll and questions of ethics, such as whether robots should have rights.
"This exhibition is all about education, but it's not just for children," Dougherty says. "I recommend this to anyone, Star Wars fan or not. There is so much knowledge to take away about everything from robotics and technology to science in general. Star Wars is the perfect platform to teach about these things because people know about it even if they haven't seen any of the films. It's become embedded in popular culture."
Why has Star Wars remained so popular? Dougherty remembers the hype surrounding the first film as it premiered in Sydney in 1977.
"People were amazed. I think Star Wars has endured the test of time because it's such an endearing story. It keys into all the stories we use in our society: the good triumphing over evil, the hero's journey etc. It's got all the good stuff that we love. It's a very simple story in one sense but a powerful one."
The exhibition's original curator, Ed Rodley from the Museum of Science in Boston, says that despite its title the exhibition is not about Star Wars.
"It's about our world, and our future. So, why Star Wars then? One of the greatest challenges of thinking about the future lies in visualising things, particularly technologies that don't yet exist. To talk about our future, we needed a depiction of a tech- nologically advanced society that was familiar to a broad audience."
This is not the first Star Wars exhibition at the Powerhouse. In 2002, Star Wars: The Power Of Myth explored the archetypal themes and motifs from classical mythology in the films. One of the most successful Powerhouse exhibitions, it attracted more than 200,000 visitors in five months. The two exhibitions differ in aims but expectations are high that the new Star Wars exhibition will attract even more visitors.
Dawn Casey, the museum's director, says there will be a focus on the educational component of the exhibition.
The museum will run school seminars for students in their final years of high school, and host teacher forums to introduce the exhibition and offer professional development. "We're keen to reverse the shortage of children taking up science, and we see the exhibition as a launching pad to increase the involvement children have with the subject," Casey says. "With the last Star Wars exhibition we didn't get as many school groups coming through as we would have liked."
Casey has run forums with museum colleagues and academics to gauge the future of the Powerhouse Museum.
"We discovered that people think it's time for the museum to take on a stronger science and technology focus, and we're taking this on board with the new Star Wars exhibition.
"The story of Star Wars engages everyone, no matter what their age. People have grown up with the characters, and the imagination around it. It's lighthearted and it feeds the imagination."
Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination opens on December 4 at the Powerhouse Museum.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Australia's Internet Censorship
This is an article on internet censorship for The Guardian. Original can be found here.
Won't somebody think of the children? This mantra is being used with great effect by the Australian government to increase its control over what Australians see, watch and do - all, ostensibly, in the name of protecting the nation's youth. And a scheme that amounts to censorship is coming closer: the government has said that it wants to start live trials of ISP-level content filtering before Christmas.
In January, the government annouunced its $A128.5m (£55.2m) Plan for Cyber-Safety - a content-filtering scheme based on the pre-election pledge of Kevin Rudd, who became prime minister last year. His plan follows the failure of the A$189m NetAlert scheme put in place by the government of John Howard, who was defeated in the last federal election.
The plan was put together by Australian Labor senator Stephen Conroy, the minister for broadband, communications and the digital economy, with the aim of protecting children from pornography and violent websites and the banning outright of illegal material.
Australians will be unable to opt out of the scheme. Senator Conroy told the Australian media: "Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road. If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the government is going to disagree."
Keeping it clean
The scheme will require ISPs to offer a "clean-feed" web service to all homes, schools and public internet access points. There will be two blacklists: one that blocks all illegal material, such as child pornography; and the second which blocks a list of things deemed unsuitable for children, to be determined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Only the latter blacklist will be optional.
What better rationale than children's sensibilities to reassure people the trampling of their rights is worth it? The Australian government's agenda on national censorship is based on an appeal to emotion - it doesn't matter what it bans or censors, it can always claim it's for the benefit of children.
However, the response has been largely hostile. An online poll by the Courier-Mail newspaper in Queensland showed that some 86% of respondents do not support the scheme. And concerns that it is technically impossible to implement and will slow further Australia's already slow internet speeds by as much as 30% are just some of the fears.
Civil liberties groups say that the scheme is an infringement of Australians' rights. Colin Jacobs, who chairs the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, says: "I'm not exaggerating when I say that this model involved more technical interference in the internet infrastructure that what is attempted in Iran, one of the most regressive censorship regimes in the world."
Australia doesn't have a good track record on censorship. For example, the continued refusal by the attorneys-general of Australia to introduce an R18+ classification for videogames is just one issue in addition to the proposed filtering scheme.
When DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover was first published in 1928, Australia was not the only nation to ban the book. But 40 years later, it remained one of the only countries where the ban was still in force. Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho is still in effect banned in the state of Queensland - the book is classified a Category 1 publication, meaning it cannot be sold in the state and must be sealed in plastic before it is sold anywhere else. And Australia's previous attempt to censor the internet is nothing to be proud of. In August last year, 16-year-old Tom Wood was able to hack through the NetAlert filters, put in place by the previous government at a cost said to be A$84m, in just half an hour (Are web filters just a waste of everyone's time and money? August 30 2007). When the Australian government was apprised of that, it added another filter; Wood cracked that in 10 minutes.
Helen Coonan, the then communications minister, said at the time that "unfortunately, no single measure can protect children from online harm and ... traditional parenting skills have never been more important". But perhaps that has been rethought in favour of ever more ambitious filters. While nobody would argue that it's important for everyone to have access to child pornography, the counter-argument - that it's more important to find the tiny number of people who access such content and prosecute them, while leaving everyone else alone - doesn't seem to have occurred to the Australian government.
Who benefits?
The Rudd government has released the results of a lab trial carried out last year by the ACMA, a closed-environment test of ISP-level content filters which tested the effect on network traffic and its effectiveness at identifying and blocking banned content. While the filtering technology had improved since a trial in 2005, what is clear is that a slower network is guaranteed. Of the six ISP-level filters tested in July by the ACMA, the majority caused drops in speed between 21% and 86%. The filters also proved inaccurate, with a significant number of innocuous pages blocked (1.3% to 7.8%) and unsafe pages let through (2% to 13%).
What's more, the scheme will only be applied to web traffic, meaning that peer-to-peer filesharing will not be filtered, despite accounting for an estimated 60% of internet traffic in Australia.
The government has tried to get around these problems by pointing to Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand, which all have similar filtering systems. However, in those countries the filtering systems are not mandatory. In the UK, BT's CleanFeed system uses a list of thousands of sites hosting content such as child pornography provided by the UK-based Internet Watch Foundation; the list is offered without compulsion to ISPs.
The Australian government is commited to pushing ahead with its trials, despite the overwhelmingly negative reaction. Nobody seems to be benefiting from the move - except possibly the ISPs, who will be able to charge for additional filters. The children the government is so keen to protect will simply see their internet speeds degraded.
Won't somebody think of the children? This mantra is being used with great effect by the Australian government to increase its control over what Australians see, watch and do - all, ostensibly, in the name of protecting the nation's youth. And a scheme that amounts to censorship is coming closer: the government has said that it wants to start live trials of ISP-level content filtering before Christmas.
In January, the government annouunced its $A128.5m (£55.2m) Plan for Cyber-Safety - a content-filtering scheme based on the pre-election pledge of Kevin Rudd, who became prime minister last year. His plan follows the failure of the A$189m NetAlert scheme put in place by the government of John Howard, who was defeated in the last federal election.
The plan was put together by Australian Labor senator Stephen Conroy, the minister for broadband, communications and the digital economy, with the aim of protecting children from pornography and violent websites and the banning outright of illegal material.
Australians will be unable to opt out of the scheme. Senator Conroy told the Australian media: "Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road. If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the government is going to disagree."
Keeping it clean
The scheme will require ISPs to offer a "clean-feed" web service to all homes, schools and public internet access points. There will be two blacklists: one that blocks all illegal material, such as child pornography; and the second which blocks a list of things deemed unsuitable for children, to be determined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Only the latter blacklist will be optional.
What better rationale than children's sensibilities to reassure people the trampling of their rights is worth it? The Australian government's agenda on national censorship is based on an appeal to emotion - it doesn't matter what it bans or censors, it can always claim it's for the benefit of children.
However, the response has been largely hostile. An online poll by the Courier-Mail newspaper in Queensland showed that some 86% of respondents do not support the scheme. And concerns that it is technically impossible to implement and will slow further Australia's already slow internet speeds by as much as 30% are just some of the fears.
Civil liberties groups say that the scheme is an infringement of Australians' rights. Colin Jacobs, who chairs the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, says: "I'm not exaggerating when I say that this model involved more technical interference in the internet infrastructure that what is attempted in Iran, one of the most regressive censorship regimes in the world."
Australia doesn't have a good track record on censorship. For example, the continued refusal by the attorneys-general of Australia to introduce an R18+ classification for videogames is just one issue in addition to the proposed filtering scheme.
When DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover was first published in 1928, Australia was not the only nation to ban the book. But 40 years later, it remained one of the only countries where the ban was still in force. Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho is still in effect banned in the state of Queensland - the book is classified a Category 1 publication, meaning it cannot be sold in the state and must be sealed in plastic before it is sold anywhere else. And Australia's previous attempt to censor the internet is nothing to be proud of. In August last year, 16-year-old Tom Wood was able to hack through the NetAlert filters, put in place by the previous government at a cost said to be A$84m, in just half an hour (Are web filters just a waste of everyone's time and money? August 30 2007). When the Australian government was apprised of that, it added another filter; Wood cracked that in 10 minutes.
Helen Coonan, the then communications minister, said at the time that "unfortunately, no single measure can protect children from online harm and ... traditional parenting skills have never been more important". But perhaps that has been rethought in favour of ever more ambitious filters. While nobody would argue that it's important for everyone to have access to child pornography, the counter-argument - that it's more important to find the tiny number of people who access such content and prosecute them, while leaving everyone else alone - doesn't seem to have occurred to the Australian government.
Who benefits?
The Rudd government has released the results of a lab trial carried out last year by the ACMA, a closed-environment test of ISP-level content filters which tested the effect on network traffic and its effectiveness at identifying and blocking banned content. While the filtering technology had improved since a trial in 2005, what is clear is that a slower network is guaranteed. Of the six ISP-level filters tested in July by the ACMA, the majority caused drops in speed between 21% and 86%. The filters also proved inaccurate, with a significant number of innocuous pages blocked (1.3% to 7.8%) and unsafe pages let through (2% to 13%).
What's more, the scheme will only be applied to web traffic, meaning that peer-to-peer filesharing will not be filtered, despite accounting for an estimated 60% of internet traffic in Australia.
The government has tried to get around these problems by pointing to Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand, which all have similar filtering systems. However, in those countries the filtering systems are not mandatory. In the UK, BT's CleanFeed system uses a list of thousands of sites hosting content such as child pornography provided by the UK-based Internet Watch Foundation; the list is offered without compulsion to ISPs.
The Australian government is commited to pushing ahead with its trials, despite the overwhelmingly negative reaction. Nobody seems to be benefiting from the move - except possibly the ISPs, who will be able to charge for additional filters. The children the government is so keen to protect will simply see their internet speeds degraded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
