Lionhead Studios - Interview with Peter Molyneux @ GamesIndustry.biz

[magerette]

GamesIndustry.biz has posted the second part of their two part interview with Lionhead Studio's Peter Molyneux. The discussion is about Molyneux' views on games as art, and what he'd like to acheive in Fable 2 :

GamesIndustry.biz: You've always been outspoken in your beliefs about what games have the potential to offer and where they could go. What's your view on the question of whether games are an art form?
Peter Molyneux: Of course they are.
Why would you say that is?
Why would you say they weren't? I'm very glib about that because this is a philosophical question. Before I really answer it, you have to define what art is to you. If art is described as something which promotes a reaction in you and lets you glimpse something that's more than reality - then yes, of course they're an art form...
...I will say this: if this industry doesn't start waking up from the slumber it's in at the moment and realising we're not making people go 'Wow!' any more, we are going to become increasingly niche.
We need to look at the sense of wonder everybody has when they see a screen, and how many computer games are really getting that. That is art because it pulls people in, just like a piece of great art.
I want to play Spider-Man 3, of course I do... But what I desperately want I don't see very often these days: that moment I had when I first saw computer games. When I first saw Street Fighter, my eyes were glued to the screen. You look back at it now and it looks really rubbish, but it was incredible at that time.
We have to get that sense of wonder back into this industry, and that's a real obsession of mine at the moment.

Part 1 of the interview, which deals with Fable2's combat approach, may be found here.
More information.

 

[zakhal]

I think the best reason why games can be considered as art is the fact that you cant produce them on assembly line.

Just look at EA. EA tries to find an assembly line formula for games. Creativity can't thrive under those conditions. Art is too elusive and personal to be churned out like a factory product.

 

[Reyla]

I think the best reason why games can be considered as art is the fact that you cant produce them on assembly line.

Just look at EA. EA tries to find an assembly line formula for games. Creativity can't thrive under those conditions. Art is too elusive and personal to be churned out like a factory product.

Art can be churned out on an assembly line.

Television series and movie sequels are perfect examples. EA is trying to emulate this creative process.

This interview is about semantics anyway. Now that I wrote this, someone will reply telling me soap operas, sitcoms and courtroom dramas are not "art"

 

[DArtagnan]

Find an objective definition of art, then debate.

Since there is no objective definition of art, the debate becomes pointless, where as it really should be an exchange of opinion.

When Ebert said games weren't art, he was really talking about his own limited opinion. Limited as all opinions are, yes, but most gamers have more things around which to base their opinions related to games on.

 

[Prime Junta]

Art can be churned out on an assembly line.

Television series and movie sequels are perfect examples. EA is trying to emulate this creative process.

This interview is about semantics anyway. Now that I wrote this, someone will reply telling me soap operas, sitcoms and courtroom dramas are not "art"

Well, they're not.

Not in their original context anyway.

Not everything that takes creative effort to produce is art. We just released a piece of software on Friday. I wrote a significant chunk of it myself. The process of producing it was every bit as intensive and creative as the process of producing art.

But calling that piece of software art would be a very... long... stretch. The reason is that the intention isn't artistic -- it's instrumental. We set out to do something that fulfills a specific need in a specific market, not to create something that people would experience as art.

Similarly, courtroom dramas and soap operas aren't artistic in intent. They're intended to engage audiences enough that they'll stick around for the commercials. So they're not art.

Of course, it's possible that someone will make an artistically ambitious soap opera episode, or someone will appropriate a soap opera episode into a work with artistic intent, or any of a number of other things. That would mean that the soap opera becomes art, but it doesn't mean it was it originally.

Re computer games? Some are IMO comparable to soap operas (or the software we just released). Colin McRae Rally is an impressive technical achievement but I don't think that it's quite right to call it "art." On the other hand, titles like Psychonauts, Planescape: Torment, and Bioshock clearly have artistic intent built-in as well. Peter Molyneux has artistic intent by the bucketload, but whether he actually manages to achieve what he intended is another question.

So, my take is that "are computer games art?" is the wrong question, just like "is TV art?" or "are movies art?" or "is photography art?" are wrong questions. Computer games, TV, movies, and photography are media. All of them can be used for utilitarian, documentary, educational, entertainment, or artistic purposes. So, while "is TV art?" is a dumb question, "is Sopranos art?" is not.

 

[DArtagnan]

Again, with the subjective.

Maybe YOU don't consider the software you write art, but some people might. Art doesn't have to be about aesthetics or emotional intent.

Some people consider a well-crafted piece of work art, simply because it's so well done. Others don't.

There is NO objectve definition of art that can't be interpreted a million times over.

I know this approaches semantics, but it's primarily based on what I get from your words. If your intention was to explain your own perception, and nothing more, then I apologize. But it sure sounded to me like you were trying to tell people "the way it is".

 

[Prime Junta]

There is NO objectve definition of art that can't be interpreted a million times over.

I maintain that there is no objective definition of anything that isn't open to interpretation. Yet meaningful discussion is possible. What do you make of that?

 

[DArtagnan]

I maintain that there is no objective definition of anything that isn't open to interpretation. Yet meaningful discussion is possible. What do you make of that?

We're talking about degrees here.

Art is not a rectangle, which we can define easily. Nor is it a first person shooter, which is less clear but still relatively easy to define objectively.

Art is something that is entirely subjective, and indeed I think that's my personal definition of it. But speaking about it as if there was some objective truth to what you're saying is a bold thing to do.

That is what my point was about.

 

[Prime Junta]

We're talking about degrees here.

Art is not a rectangle, which we can define easily. Nor is it a first person shooter, which is less clear but still relatively easy to define objectively.

Art is something that is entirely subjective, and indeed I think that's my personal definition of it. But speaking about it as if there was some objective truth to what you're saying is a bold thing to do.

That is what my point was about.

If art is entirely subjective, that means that there's nothing meaningful you can say about it at all, since any meanings you want to attach to the word only exist in your head. It would fall under Wittgenstein's "wovon man nicht reden kann, davon muss man schweigen" rule. In other words, the definition cannot carry any meaningful information, and is therefore completely useless.

However, here you are, saying things about art. In other words, you're in cognitive dissonance -- saying that one thing is false but behaving as if it was true. Don't you think it might be interesting to try to resolve that dissonance?

Personally, I believe we can arrive at a meaningful intersubjective definition of art -- which is as much as we can hope for in defining any subject. Hell, we can even adjust the definition depending on context.

 

[DArtagnan]

If art is entirely subjective, that means that there's nothing meaningful you can say about it at all, since any meanings you want to attach to the word only exist in your head.

I'm not sure I follow this logic.

First of all, I never said art should be entirely subjective. That was taken out of context, because I was speaking about the definition of art, not art itself.

Secondly, even if I did, I don't think talking about it necessarily has to be meaningless. I'm sorry I can't find a suitable academic reference or quote to back this up, but I'm just a guy with an opinion.

However, I actually DO believe that art should start as something subjetive. It doesn't have to BE subjective, but whatever you want to create should be done for entirely subjective reasons.

This is, again, semantics.

What I'm really talking about is art versus commercial products. Most games (if not all) are made today with a commercial interest weighing a lot throughout creation. That itself lessens the art, in my opinion.

Still, all that has little to do with my point.

Of course we can discuss what art is or what it should be. But I simply don't think it's particularly beneficial trying to objectively define art, seeing as there can be no such thing.

I took you words as an attempt to do just that, and as I already said, I apologize if that was not your intention.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm not sure I follow this logic.

First of all, I never said art should be entirely subjective. That was taken out of context, because I was speaking about the definition of art, not art itself.

I was talking about the definition of art as well. If you find that the definition of art is completely subjective, the word becomes perfectly useless since it can no longer carry any meaning from one person to another. You might as well say "SKNX is perfectly subjective" or "Smurf smurf art smurfs smurf." You may attach meanings to "SKNX" or "smurf," but if these meanings are completely subjective, there's no way you can communicate anything about it.

Of course we can discuss what art is or what it should be. But I simply don't think it's particularly beneficial trying to objectively define art, seeing as there can be no such thing.

I think it's pointless to try to objectively define *anything* -- even concepts as simple as "rectangle." What we can do, though, is agree on a provisional definition that we can adjust and refine as we go, if necessary. Sometimes we have to, in order to be able to carry on a meaningful conversation.

And I happen to believe that defining art by intent is a fairly useful way of doing it -- I find that most things most people would say are definitely art would be included in the definition, while most things most people would say are definitely not art, wouldn't be... and exploring the boundaries of art based on this definition can lead to some useful insights as well.

I took you words as an attempt to do just that, and as I already said, I apologize if that was not your intention.

Apology not necessary; if everybody had to apologize every time there was a misunderstanding, there would be no room left for actually saying anything.

 

[magerette]

It's difficult not to define subjectively, since our thoughts are filtered that way, at least in the primary loop. IMO, any useful definition has to have both elements, subjective and objective--not just "what is art," but "what is art for you?" before it makes much sense. Somewhere in the mix, you have a place for discussion.

I don't want to take your words out of context, D'artagnan, but if as you say here:

Art doesn't have to be about aesthetics or emotional intent.

I'm curious as to what you think it does have to be about.

If you remove aesthetics (for which I'm going to use the objective definition) and emotional intent, I think you are left merely with craftsmanship.
Yes, a simple object created for functionality can possibly become art through exquisite craftsmanship, but doesn't that imply that it is existing at the aesthetic as well as the functional level? A spoon is a spoon; a Mayan carved spoon in translucent jade that sits in a museum case has transcended its function as a spoon and now exists to be admired; yes you could break the case and eat soup with it if circumstances so decreed, but at this point in space and time, because it encorporates the aesthetic element of beauty, it has become art.

I'm not trying to be difficult and split hairs, I am interested in your view. What are you picturing in your mind as art that has no aesthetic content or emotional intent?

 

[Moriendor]

To me (note that we're in subjective territory now ) video games per se are entertainment products, not art. They are, however, entertainment products that are made up of individual acts of art (i.e. the creative process of designing a world, landscape, building, character or even story, dialogue = art but the end result is merely an entertainment product in my opinion).
I'd say the same is true for e.g. soap operas on TV. The jingle that plays as the opening music = art (since composing it involves a creative process) just like the making of set items usually involves an individual act of art but the end result is once again "only" an entertainment product.

All of the above is strictly only "IMHO", of course .

 

[abbaon]

Junta, could you please define artistic intent without using any declension of the word "art"? I assume you're not saying that creative product only becomes art when the creator explicitly thinks "Art!" But I don't know what you are saying.

 

[DArtagnan]

I was talking about the definition of art as well. If you find that the definition of art is completely subjective, the word becomes perfectly useless since it can no longer carry any meaning from one person to another. You might as well say "SKNX is perfectly subjective" or "Smurf smurf art smurfs smurf." You may attach meanings to "SKNX" or "smurf," but if these meanings are completely subjective, there's no way you can communicate anything about it.

No, I can't agree.

Just because it's subjective, doesn't mean people can have no common ground. My personal definition can be entirely unique, and yet have things about it that can be communicated and understood. Therefore, it could make a lot of sense to discuss it.

I might even be able to convince others enough to make them see the light

I think it's pointless to try to objectively define *anything* -- even concepts as simple as "rectangle." What we can do, though, is agree on a provisional definition that we can adjust and refine as we go, if necessary. Sometimes we have to, in order to be able to carry on a meaningful conversation.

Semantics again.

But I think we agree overall here.

And I happen to believe that defining art by intent is a fairly useful way of doing it -- I find that most things most people would say are definitely art would be included in the definition, while most things most people would say are definitely not art, wouldn't be... and exploring the boundaries of art based on this definition can lead to some useful insights as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by defining by intent, except if it's a fancy way of saying, simply, defining.

In any case, we're left with semantics and I don't particularly feel like a verbal fencing match with no worthwhile goal in sight, as my point has been made.

Whether you call it an objective definition or a provisional definition is not really important. Because my point was about trying to determine what art is as truth, rather than as a personal perception.

I'm not trying to be difficult and split hairs, I am interested in your view. What are you picturing in your mind as art that has no aesthetic content or emotional intent?

No, I appreciate what you're asking.

But, I wasn't talking about my own perception of art, but the possibility of what others might consider art.

Let's say a person is cooking dinner, and he has a certain standard that he wants to achieve. A certain taste. It's something that HE likes and therefore he is willing to perform certain meticulous tasks to complete the meal.

The creation of this meal could be said to be devoid of emotional intent and it wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing as I understand it. Such a thing could be a work of art to some people, because it requires a level of dedication and creative ability to achieve that particular taste. In fact, it would match my own personal perception of art, because the creation is based on entirely subjective wishes and intents.

However, I'm aware of the circular nature of this point, because how can we exclude emotions entirely when dealing with any kind of craftsmanship. We're not robots, after all, and as such maybe emotions can never be removed from the equation.

But still, I think my point is relatively clear.

Also, regarding the soap operas, I'm pretty sure there are people working on "The Bold and the Beautiful" that consider the show art, or at least parts of the show art.

It is, as I said, entirely subjective.

If we look at an official definition from Webster.com:

the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

We can note that it's a relatively widespread understanding that a simple use of skill and creative imagination is enough to fit the definition. However, that's not a definition I find thorough, and indeed it lacks some aspects I personally deem vital to achieve the "status" of art.

As I said, I personally believe that art must be made without consideration for what others want or what might be of commercial appeal. I won't recognize seeking popularity as art, no matter the motivation. But that's just me.

 

[magerette]

D'Artagnan wrote:

Let's say a person is cooking dinner, and he has a certain standard that he wants to achieve. A certain taste. It's something that HE likes and therefore he is willing to perform certain meticulous tasks to complete the meal.

The creation of this meal could be said to be devoid of emotional intent and it wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing as I understand it. Such a thing could be a work of art to some people, because it requires a level of dedication and creative ability to achieve that particular taste. In fact, it would match my own personal perception of art, because the creation is based on entirely subjective wishes and intents.

Thanks for explaining what you had in mind. I do see your point though I don't completely agree; I can see this meal as art, but to me it also has emotional intent--the pride of the cook, the desire to create an effect with the meal in the diner--and aesthetics- since it involves the senses and so may appear and/or taste sublime or terrible and can only achieve its purpose in this way. But obviously you foresaw my argument:

However, I'm aware of the circular nature of this point, because how can we exclude emotions entirely when dealing with any kind of craftsmanship. We're not robots, after all, and as such maybe emotions can never be removed from the equation.

Exactly. Though there is art I'm sure that begins as a pure intellectual experience, I think as it is assimilated by our senses by it's nature it awakens an emotional response, or at least an appreciation that is more than just an abstract buzz across the synapses. Otherwise math would be art (and under an entirely subjective definition, perhaps to some it is.)

I think there are a lot of ways to look at art, and that any definition that is too exact becomes rigid and exclusive. And I do agree with the spirit of your last statement that

... art must be made without consideration for what others want or what might be of commercial appeal. I won't recognize seeking popularity as art, no matter the motivation..

though I'm sure we could find plenty of examples of art that was created to order or in the hopes that it would be commercially successful, beginning with the Sistine Chapel all the way to the houses of Frank Lloyd Wright or the works of Mozart.
However, I think when you talk about anything that's produced with the primary object of making money, and lots of it you're talking about the bogus product that is marketed as art and really is only a parody of something genuine, whereas the artists in the examples above produced what they had according to their own vision, and were trying to find ways to use that vision to survive.

And that brings us right back to video games. When they are created to a commercial template, scrutinized for popularity and highest sales, generically executed and funded and approved by bean-counting middlemen, art is the last thing that happens. When a developer has a great game that carries the force of art, it's seldom something that can come through this kind of draconian assembly-line paradigm intact.

I'm not contending games can't be art, but not under those conditions.

 

[Geist]

I think you pretty much nailed two of the more important characteristics that an object is likely to have if people are to categorize it as art.

1. It should be unique or original in some way. Or, if it is based on an existing prototype it should at least add something new or appreciably different. Our senses are less likely to be stirred by something which they have already experienced many times over to the same extent that they would react to a novel experience. Of course, simply being unique is not enough for a creation to become art. I could arrange a group of sticks in a forest in a way that is entirely unique, but if it's just an ad-hoc pile of sticks no one would consider it art.

2. The creation should elicit an emotional response from those experiencing it (whether it was the creator's intent to evoke such a reaction isn't particularly relevant, imo). I'm not talking about the kind of emotional response that a user of Prime Junta's newly developed piece of software might have when he thinks, "yippee, this is going to save me so much work in the future!" or the reaction that a passer-by might express after tripping over my elaborately arranged pile of sticks ("Where's that #$@%! lunatic who put those god damn branches on my walking path"). The emotion I'm referring to is that sense of wonder, awe, or wistfulness that sometimes strikes us when we are particularly moved by something. It's impossible to define precisely, but usually we can recognize it when it hits us and differentiate it from other emotions.

I'm not saying that the two attributes above are unique to art, or that an object needs to have one or both of them in order to be classified as art. But if it does possess them, there is a chance that a fair number of people will deem it to be a work of art.

 

[Prime Junta]

No, I can't agree.

Just because it's subjective, doesn't mean people can have no common ground. My personal definition can be entirely unique, and yet have things about it that can be communicated and understood. Therefore, it could make a lot of sense to discuss it.

In that case, it's not completely subjective -- only partly.

I'm not sure what you mean by defining by intent, except if it's a fancy way of saying, simply, defining.

Nothing fancy about it. It just means that if I create something with an artistic intent in mind, the resulting artifact is art. Conversely, if I create something with no artistic intent, the resulting artifact is not art.

Whether it's any good as art or not is another question.

Of course, "creating" is a very wide concept -- it could mean anything from chipping out a sculpture from a block of marble to appropriating an artifact not normally considered art and exhibiting it as such (Duchamp's pissoir being the classic example).

In any case, we're left with semantics and I don't particularly feel like a verbal fencing match with no worthwhile goal in sight, as my point has been made.

I hate arguments about semantics. They're utterly pointless. What we can (and sometimes should) do is discuss semantics in order to agree on a definition for the purposes of the discussion so that we understand what we're talking about. For example, if I have the "intentional definition" of art in mind and I talk about it, while you have, for example, the "art as craft" definition in mind, we will certainly be talking at cross-purposes -- for example, the Leica M3 would fit your definition but not mine, while Duchamp's pissoir would fit my definition but not yours.

Whether you call it an objective definition or a provisional definition is not really important. Because my point was about trying to determine what art is as truth, rather than as a personal perception.

Art is a concept. There's no "truth" to concepts. Only meanings.

If we look at an official definition from Webster.com:

the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

We can note that it's a relatively widespread understanding that a simple use of skill and creative imagination is enough to fit the definition. However, that's not a definition I find thorough, and indeed it lacks some aspects I personally deem vital to achieve the "status" of art.

I don't find that definition particularly useful, since it would leave out e.g. Duchamp's pissoir -- which was, I might remind you, recently voted as the most influential work of art of the 20th century.

[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm ]

As I said, I personally believe that art must be made without consideration for what others want or what might be of commercial appeal. I won't recognize seeking popularity as art, no matter the motivation. But that's just me.

By that definition, Michelangelo, Mozart, Verdi, or Charlie Chaplin wouldn't be art. IOW, I don't find it a very useful one either.

 

[Prime Junta]

Junta, could you please define artistic intent without using any declension of the word "art"? I assume you're not saying that creative product only becomes art when the creator explicitly thinks "Art!" But I don't know what you are saying.

I could try, but I doubt it would make things any clearer.

I am actually saying that a creative product only becomes art when the creator explicitly thinks "Art!" However, keep in mind that "the creator" could be any number of things -- to bring up Duchamp's urinal again, it wasn't art when it came out of the porcelain factory, but it became art when Duchamp thought "Art!" and hauled it to the gallery, put a rope around it, and attached a label saying "Fontaine."

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm not saying that the two attributes above are unique to art, or that an object needs to have one or both of them in order to be classified as art. But if it does possess them, there is a chance that a fair number of people will deem it to be a work of art.

The problem with this definition is that perceptions are subjective and contradictory, whereas the creator's intent isn't. For example, Van Gogh painted a pot of flowers. Most people at the time who saw it thought "Meh." In other words, by your definition, Van Gogh's sunflowers would only have become art after he died and some folks thought "oo, art!"

OTOH, suppose I set out to create a work of art, with the intent to stir the emotions as you describe them. Then suppose it fails to do that for my intended audience. Does that mean it wasn't art? IMO no, it doesn't -- it could mean that I was way ahead of my time when creating it, or it could mean that it was a lousy artwork, or it could mean that I was exhibiting it to the wrong people. But even if it's any or all of these things, it's still art.